5 ms·

That response is why I usually censor myself.

by jkestner 11y ago

Dewie3 11y ago
Avoiding name-dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts must be very hard. How do you even manage to be yourself?
- javajosh 11y ago
  If you two were friends, this might come across as playful ribbing ('taking the piss' as they say in the UK). But since I don't think you are friends, it comes across as mean, on your part. And you demonstrate (usefully, I think) the mistake of confusing complex and/or erudite speech/vocab with arrogance. But actually, I think the "attribution of arrogance" is a post hoc rationalization. In truth, some people feel utterly threatened by complex, erudite speech. It is hard to be confronted with a person who is having a thought that, without a lifetime of reading with intellectual curiosity (and a good memory), cannot be fully appreciated. Speaking intelligently can be (often is) like serving a plate of delicate, complex food in front of someone who isn't interested in this "pansy bullshit" and just wants a hot dog. And it hurts the same way, because what you prepared for them really is amazing, and not only is the effort not appreciated, but the recipient interprets the offer as an insult. This is a very painful experience, and you learn to take great care to learn who is expecting a gourmet conversation and who is not.
  - Dewie3 11y ago
    > And you demonstrate (usefully, I think) the mistake of confusing complex and/or erudite speech/vocab with arrogance. There is nothing complex, hard to understand or erudite about "I went to MIT", "my wife is well-read" or "as a nerd being among other nerds is nice". Though I guess having studied at MIT implies that you have great knowledge, so is erudite in that kind of indirect way. As to the rest of your post, I do not (mis)attribute speech which shows that the person is intelligent or knows things that I don't understand at all. I am comfortable with that. The person has to also come off as trying to show off, as opposed to just talking about what they're interested in. But I appreciate your stab at an analysis of my insecurities. And yes I had to look up what erudite means. > Speaking intelligently can be (often is) like serving a plate of delicate, complex food in front of someone who isn't interested in this "pansy bullshit" and just wants a hot dog. And it hurts the same way, because what you prepared for them really is amazing, and not only is the effort not appreciated, but the recipient interprets the offer as an insult. This is a very painful experience, and you learn to take great care to learn who is expecting a gourmet conversation and who is not. This thinking often leads to elitist attitudes. Some things are more complex or harder to get into than other things. That doesn't mean that they are superior to entertain. It might show that the person who appreciates them has a certain intellect, or whatever, but not ttat the thing itself is inherently good. I used to think this way about a certain medium - why can't people appreciate this thing that I showed them? Can't they see that it is better crafted, more thought out, more beautiful than that other thing that they are currently interested in? Then I stopped looking at it as a matter of appreciating ever-more complex, hard and well-crafted things and just as appreciating the thing for itself. If two people enjoy two different things equally, does it matter which one is superior by some objective standard? No. It's just a bullshit distraction.
  - sombremesa 11y ago
    While I understand where you're coming from and agree to some extent, I think there is a difference between "speaking `intelligently`", "having an intelligent conversation" and "leaving a comment on the internet". I would argue that there is no such thing as the first without the second, because you are not 'speaking `intelligently`' if there is no one who understands you and is able to make a conversant reply. In such a case you are only being arrogant.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    Complex speech is very often evil, confusing and totally unnecessary. Especially when employed by the officials. These folks got a point: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      There is complexity that obscures and complexity that enlightens. Some concepts can only be conveyed adequately by using intricately detailed explanations. The same is true for simplicity -- too much simplification and a discussion devolves into a battle against strawmen. Officials are guilty of this as well.
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    Having been through that exact situation, I can't agree enough. With time one may learn to sense if the context is right instead of suffering a blow. Unless he's ready to invest a lot to reach common ground. People do change, but it's a bet.
- carc 11y ago
  The insecurity is strong with this one. You're projecting that the person's literary references are "name dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts". There is no basis for this assumption, other than your obvious bias to jump to the conclusion that this person is elitist and goes out of their way to seem elitist. Why? Are you sensitive that you didn't get into a school like MIT? Neither did I, but nothing he is saying comes across as even remotely elitist to me. You're really just coming across as a jerk.
  - Dewie3 11y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. > You're projecting that the person's literary references are "name dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts". I wasn't talking about literary references. > and goes out of their way to seem elitist. The goal of someone who is elitist isn't really to come across as elitist, dude... > Are you sensitive that you didn't get into a school like MIT? I got into the school that I applied for. No, you haven't heard of it; no, it isn't prestigious. See, this is the thing with elitism. It is easy to dismiss people that are put off by it as jealousy. If I am put off by someone who thinks he is hot shit for listening to Mozart, it's not because I have anything against classical music or people who listen to classical music. It is because I don't like people who thinks they are special for listening to <thing>.

That response is why I usually censor myself.

Dewie3 11y ago

Avoiding name-dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts must be very hard. How do you even manage to be yourself?

javajosh 11y ago
If you two were friends, this might come across as playful ribbing ('taking the piss' as they say in the UK). But since I don't think you are friends, it comes across as mean, on your part. And you demonstrate (usefully, I think) the mistake of confusing complex and/or erudite speech/vocab with arrogance. But actually, I think the "attribution of arrogance" is a post hoc rationalization. In truth, some people feel utterly threatened by complex, erudite speech. It is hard to be confronted with a person who is having a thought that, without a lifetime of reading with intellectual curiosity (and a good memory), cannot be fully appreciated. Speaking intelligently can be (often is) like serving a plate of delicate, complex food in front of someone who isn't interested in this "pansy bullshit" and just wants a hot dog. And it hurts the same way, because what you prepared for them really is amazing, and not only is the effort not appreciated, but the recipient interprets the offer as an insult. This is a very painful experience, and you learn to take great care to learn who is expecting a gourmet conversation and who is not.
- Dewie3 11y ago
  > And you demonstrate (usefully, I think) the mistake of confusing complex and/or erudite speech/vocab with arrogance. There is nothing complex, hard to understand or erudite about "I went to MIT", "my wife is well-read" or "as a nerd being among other nerds is nice". Though I guess having studied at MIT implies that you have great knowledge, so is erudite in that kind of indirect way. As to the rest of your post, I do not (mis)attribute speech which shows that the person is intelligent or knows things that I don't understand at all. I am comfortable with that. The person has to also come off as trying to show off, as opposed to just talking about what they're interested in. But I appreciate your stab at an analysis of my insecurities. And yes I had to look up what erudite means. > Speaking intelligently can be (often is) like serving a plate of delicate, complex food in front of someone who isn't interested in this "pansy bullshit" and just wants a hot dog. And it hurts the same way, because what you prepared for them really is amazing, and not only is the effort not appreciated, but the recipient interprets the offer as an insult. This is a very painful experience, and you learn to take great care to learn who is expecting a gourmet conversation and who is not. This thinking often leads to elitist attitudes. Some things are more complex or harder to get into than other things. That doesn't mean that they are superior to entertain. It might show that the person who appreciates them has a certain intellect, or whatever, but not ttat the thing itself is inherently good. I used to think this way about a certain medium - why can't people appreciate this thing that I showed them? Can't they see that it is better crafted, more thought out, more beautiful than that other thing that they are currently interested in? Then I stopped looking at it as a matter of appreciating ever-more complex, hard and well-crafted things and just as appreciating the thing for itself. If two people enjoy two different things equally, does it matter which one is superior by some objective standard? No. It's just a bullshit distraction.
- sombremesa 11y ago
  While I understand where you're coming from and agree to some extent, I think there is a difference between "speaking `intelligently`", "having an intelligent conversation" and "leaving a comment on the internet". I would argue that there is no such thing as the first without the second, because you are not 'speaking `intelligently`' if there is no one who understands you and is able to make a conversant reply. In such a case you are only being arrogant.
- sklogic 11y ago
  Complex speech is very often evil, confusing and totally unnecessary. Especially when employed by the officials. These folks got a point: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    There is complexity that obscures and complexity that enlightens. Some concepts can only be conveyed adequately by using intricately detailed explanations. The same is true for simplicity -- too much simplification and a discussion devolves into a battle against strawmen. Officials are guilty of this as well.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Having been through that exact situation, I can't agree enough. With time one may learn to sense if the context is right instead of suffering a blow. Unless he's ready to invest a lot to reach common ground. People do change, but it's a bet.
carc 11y ago
The insecurity is strong with this one. You're projecting that the person's literary references are "name dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts". There is no basis for this assumption, other than your obvious bias to jump to the conclusion that this person is elitist and goes out of their way to seem elitist. Why? Are you sensitive that you didn't get into a school like MIT? Neither did I, but nothing he is saying comes across as even remotely elitist to me. You're really just coming across as a jerk.
- Dewie3 11y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. > You're projecting that the person's literary references are "name dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts". I wasn't talking about literary references. > and goes out of their way to seem elitist. The goal of someone who is elitist isn't really to come across as elitist, dude... > Are you sensitive that you didn't get into a school like MIT? I got into the school that I applied for. No, you haven't heard of it; no, it isn't prestigious. See, this is the thing with elitism. It is easy to dismiss people that are put off by it as jealousy. If I am put off by someone who thinks he is hot shit for listening to Mozart, it's not because I have anything against classical music or people who listen to classical music. It is because I don't like people who thinks they are special for listening to <thing>.