4 ms·

Please don’t patronize me. It indeed looks like the press release from OpenAI is under scrutiny. What you fail to understand is human nature and the way people

Please don’t patronize me. It indeed looks like the press release from OpenAI is under scrutiny. What you fail to understand is human nature and the way people really do things ^TM https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725685211436814795 https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725685211436814795

majormajor 3y ago
One imagines "human nature" cuts both ways here - sometimes damage control is just damage control.
anigbrowl 3y ago
I'm not patronizing you, I'm just responding on the same level as the post I replied to. There's an endless supply of examples of corporate/legal decisions and communication being made on very different criteria from interpersonal interactions. Of course the press release is under scrutiny, we are all wondering What Really Happened. But careless statements create significant legal (and thus financial) risk for a big corporate entity, and board members have fiduciary responsibilities, which is why 99.99% of corporate communications are bland in tone, whatever human drama may be taking place in conference rooms.
- Jerrrry 3y ago
  >John >I'm not patronizing you (A)ssuming (G)ood (F)aith, referring to someone online by their name, even in an edge case where their username is their name, is considered patronizing as it is difficult to convey a tone via text medium that isn't perceived as a mockery/veiled threat. This may be a US-internet thing; analogous to getting within striking distance with a raised voice can be a capital offense in the US, juxtaposed to being completely normal in some parts of the Middle East.
  - lijok 3y ago
    > referring to someone online by their name is considered patronizing This has to be a joke, right?
    - jrockway 3y ago
      I don't think it's a joke. I would find it patronizing unless I'm already on a first name basis with the commenter through some prior relationship.
      - EFreethought 3y ago
        It happened to me recently on a list where I post under my real name, and yes, it's irritating, especially if it is someone you never met, and they are disagreeing with you.
      - Filligree 3y ago
        Really? Referring to someone by first name is perfectly ordinary where I’m from, regardless of relationship. If someone doesn’t want me to do that, I’d expect them to introduce themselves as “Mr. so-and-so”, instead.
        TeMPOraL 3y ago
        It's not the first name alone, it's also the sentence structure. "Hey John, did you hear about..." sounds perfectly normal even when talking on-line to strangers. "John, you misunderstand..." is appropriate if you're their parent or spouse or otherwise in some kind of close relationship.
        jrockway 3y ago
        You have explained this much more concisely than me.
        jrockway 3y ago
        In person, sure, that's totally normal. It's unusual on a forum for a few reasons: 1) The comments are meant to be read by all, not just the author. If you want to email the author directly and start the message with a greeting containing their name ("hi jrockway!"), or even just their name, that's pretty normal. 2) You don't actually know the person's first name. In this case, it's pretty obvious, since the user in question goes by what looks like <firstname><lastname>. But who knows if that's actually their name. Plenty of people name their accounts after fictional people. It would be weird to everyone if your HN comment to darthvader was "Darth, I don't think you understand how corporate law departments work." Darth is not reading the comment. (OK, actually I would find that hilarious to read.) 3) Starting a sentence with someone's name and a long pause (which the written comma heavily implies) sounds like a parent scolding a child. You rarely see this form outside of a lecture, and the original comment in question is a lecture. You add the person's name to the beginning of the comment to be extra patronizing. I know that's what was going on and the person who was being replied to knows that's what was going on. The person who used that language denies that they were trying to be patronizing, but frankly, I don't believe it. Maybe they didn't mean to consciously do it, but they typed the extra word at the beginning of the sentence for some reason. What was that reason? If to soften the lecture, why not soften it even more by simply not clicking reply? It just doesn't add up. 4) It's Simply Not Done. Open any random HN discussion, and 99.99% of the time, nobody is starting replies with someone's name and a comma. It's not just HN; the same convention applies on Reddit. When you use style that deviates from the norm, you're sending a message, and it's going to have a jarring effect on the reader. Doubly jarring if you're the person they're naming. TL;DR: Don't start your replies with the name of the person you're replying to. If you're talking with someone in person, sure, throw their name in there. That's totally normal. In writing? Less normal.
  - 14u2c 3y ago
    Jerrrry, thank you for your opinion.

majormajor 3y ago

One imagines "human nature" cuts both ways here - sometimes damage control is just damage control.

anigbrowl 3y ago

I'm not patronizing you, I'm just responding on the same level as the post I replied to. There's an endless supply of examples of corporate/legal decisions and communication being made on very different criteria from interpersonal interactions. Of course the press release is under scrutiny, we are all wondering What Really Happened. But careless statements create significant legal (and thus financial) risk for a big corporate entity, and board members have fiduciary responsibilities, which is why 99.99% of corporate communications are bland in tone, whatever human drama may be taking place in conference rooms.

Jerrrry 3y ago
>John >I'm not patronizing you (A)ssuming (G)ood (F)aith, referring to someone online by their name, even in an edge case where their username is their name, is considered patronizing as it is difficult to convey a tone via text medium that isn't perceived as a mockery/veiled threat. This may be a US-internet thing; analogous to getting within striking distance with a raised voice can be a capital offense in the US, juxtaposed to being completely normal in some parts of the Middle East.
- lijok 3y ago
  > referring to someone online by their name is considered patronizing This has to be a joke, right?
  - jrockway 3y ago
    I don't think it's a joke. I would find it patronizing unless I'm already on a first name basis with the commenter through some prior relationship.
    - EFreethought 3y ago
      It happened to me recently on a list where I post under my real name, and yes, it's irritating, especially if it is someone you never met, and they are disagreeing with you.
    - Filligree 3y ago
      Really? Referring to someone by first name is perfectly ordinary where I’m from, regardless of relationship. If someone doesn’t want me to do that, I’d expect them to introduce themselves as “Mr. so-and-so”, instead.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        It's not the first name alone, it's also the sentence structure. "Hey John, did you hear about..." sounds perfectly normal even when talking on-line to strangers. "John, you misunderstand..." is appropriate if you're their parent or spouse or otherwise in some kind of close relationship.
        jrockway 3y ago
        You have explained this much more concisely than me.
      - jrockway 3y ago
        In person, sure, that's totally normal. It's unusual on a forum for a few reasons: 1) The comments are meant to be read by all, not just the author. If you want to email the author directly and start the message with a greeting containing their name ("hi jrockway!"), or even just their name, that's pretty normal. 2) You don't actually know the person's first name. In this case, it's pretty obvious, since the user in question goes by what looks like <firstname><lastname>. But who knows if that's actually their name. Plenty of people name their accounts after fictional people. It would be weird to everyone if your HN comment to darthvader was "Darth, I don't think you understand how corporate law departments work." Darth is not reading the comment. (OK, actually I would find that hilarious to read.) 3) Starting a sentence with someone's name and a long pause (which the written comma heavily implies) sounds like a parent scolding a child. You rarely see this form outside of a lecture, and the original comment in question is a lecture. You add the person's name to the beginning of the comment to be extra patronizing. I know that's what was going on and the person who was being replied to knows that's what was going on. The person who used that language denies that they were trying to be patronizing, but frankly, I don't believe it. Maybe they didn't mean to consciously do it, but they typed the extra word at the beginning of the sentence for some reason. What was that reason? If to soften the lecture, why not soften it even more by simply not clicking reply? It just doesn't add up. 4) It's Simply Not Done. Open any random HN discussion, and 99.99% of the time, nobody is starting replies with someone's name and a comma. It's not just HN; the same convention applies on Reddit. When you use style that deviates from the norm, you're sending a message, and it's going to have a jarring effect on the reader. Doubly jarring if you're the person they're naming. TL;DR: Don't start your replies with the name of the person you're replying to. If you're talking with someone in person, sure, throw their name in there. That's totally normal. In writing? Less normal.
- 14u2c 3y ago
  Jerrrry, thank you for your opinion.