5 ms·

[I think] That just makes it sound like you lack confidence.

scott_s 14y ago
That's the point. If something is an established fact, I simply state it. Often these are uncontroversial things that have been demonstrated in some way. If I qualify my statement, that's because it deserves qualification. "I think" implies "I believe this to be true, but I do not know it to be true." So, yes, I lack total confidence in such statements. It's also a way to differentiate objective statements from subjective statements: I think Metallica is a great band.
- pizza 14y ago
  When you're writing about subjectives, the "I think" is always implied: why state it explicitly?
  - scott_s 14y ago
    Clarity.
  - hobin 14y ago
    No, because the 'I think' does not mean what you think it means. You can't take it out of its social context, which is to inform people that you assign a lower certainty to the next thing you are going to say. (Of course, you could say all that, but that would make most conversations very pointless and annoying, as I can say from personal experience.)
    - pizza 14y ago
      You could say "I think the economy will be the most important issue in the next election", but you could also say "The economy will probably be the most important issue in the next election," which sounds clearer, as well as less refutable.
  - gringomorcego 14y ago
    Because how are people supposed to know you are making a subjective/qualitative judgement? It's too easy to mislead people, and too many people profit from taking advantage of that. A true argument can stand on its own.
    - pizza 14y ago
      They know by context. "Metallica is a great band" is obviously a subjective opinion and unprovable. It's the same as "I think Metallica is a great band" but with fewer useless words. This isn't misleading. If I say something potentially provable that I am unsure of but claim is a fact ("Metallica is the best-selling band of all time"), this would be misleading, and I would be taking advantage of my audience.

That's the point. If something is an established fact, I simply state it. Often these are uncontroversial things that have been demonstrated in some way. If I qualify my statement, that's because it deserves qualification. "I think" implies "I believe this to be true, but I do not know it to be true." So, yes, I lack total confidence in such statements. It's also a way to differentiate objective statements from subjective statements: I think Metallica is a great band.

pizza 14y ago
When you're writing about subjectives, the "I think" is always implied: why state it explicitly?
- scott_s 14y ago
  Clarity.
- hobin 14y ago
  No, because the 'I think' does not mean what you think it means. You can't take it out of its social context, which is to inform people that you assign a lower certainty to the next thing you are going to say. (Of course, you could say all that, but that would make most conversations very pointless and annoying, as I can say from personal experience.)
  - pizza 14y ago
    You could say "I think the economy will be the most important issue in the next election", but you could also say "The economy will probably be the most important issue in the next election," which sounds clearer, as well as less refutable.
- gringomorcego 14y ago
  Because how are people supposed to know you are making a subjective/qualitative judgement? It's too easy to mislead people, and too many people profit from taking advantage of that. A true argument can stand on its own.
  - pizza 14y ago
    They know by context. "Metallica is a great band" is obviously a subjective opinion and unprovable. It's the same as "I think Metallica is a great band" but with fewer useless words. This isn't misleading. If I say something potentially provable that I am unsure of but claim is a fact ("Metallica is the best-selling band of all time"), this would be misleading, and I would be taking advantage of my audience.