There's "socially skilled" (i.e. able to use social cues and interpersonal contact to accomplish goals) and "socially functional" (i.e. able to function in society with a minimum of problem). By definition, most people are socially functional. Throw a bunch of people together and they negotiate a social protocol. (Even people who fail at negotiating with social protocols can successfully negotiate a different social protocol in different circumstances--science fiction conventions, for instance.)
Socially skilled people make good businessmen and politicians. They can engage in "powertalk" (http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i...). They have charisma. They parlay a lucky strike running for the Senate into a successful Presidential run four years later. They radiate reality distortion fields. This is rather different than simply being able to speak the protocol.
Throw in some sweeping generalizations based on your high school experience, find a way to tie it in to Lisp, and you might even make a career out of it.
Agreed. Also the geek people that "study" or "learn" this stuff are the best in the world. They not only do what is needed, but know the reason too, witch many "naturals" don't do(they just are this way).
It takes a lot of work and practice, but it could be learn like anything else.
1) Because society is predictable. Groups act in predictable ways. Everything that's predictable makes sense.
2) But good friends do.
3) A well socialized nerd can interact with different groups. He is comfortable with hostile nerd speak (where you must be able to back up every statement with layers of facts) and he's comfortable with small talk / casual conversations with "normal" people. Most socially well adjusted people on the other hand can _only_ talk in their setting. They're completely lost as soon as they're in an environment with different social rules. (Of course there are obvious exceptions)
4) I agree. But the difference between people who are socially really smooth and "most people" is probably just as big as the gap between "most people" and socially maladjusted outcasts. If I pay a little attention I see regular people make big social mistakes all the time.
But anyway, I guess society is real, that is, "a sum greater than it's parts". By sticking to the rules, you signal conformity with society. If you don't follow the rules, but still dine at the table, you might just be a parasite of society.
That's probably not the real reason, but that doesn't prove that there is no reason. Frankly I am surprised that nerds would give up on questions like that - I thought they LIKE puzzles?
Things like that are often being studied in economics, I think. Personally I think it is pretty fascinating. (Forks are maybe an especially stupid example, for example dating and gender roles are more relevant).
In many parts of the world, that's the hand you customarily wash your arse with. So, it's a practical measure, to stop you getting faecal matter on your food.
You got it backwards. You use your left hand for that and reserve the generally-more-dexterous right hand for everything else. That's why, for example, you shake hands with your right hand, and why in those parts of the world, doing pretty much anything with your left hand is still a grave offense.
"I'm continually amazed by how much better people react if I remember to arbitrarily throw "I think" before I state an opinion. I mean, it's coming out of my mouth, and it's not like there's some external arbiter of which sitcom is funniest, so of course it's an "I think." That's assumed. But, apparently, if I go out of my way to remind people that it's my opinion with a marker that makes little sense to me, they relax. So I do it."
A lesson I have only recently learned in my 30s, it really does help!
I find this interesting because it's something that I've worked really hard to un-learn. I used to say "I think" before nearly every opinion, but I found it hard to have any of my opinions taken seriously. After all, why should anyone care what I think?
These days, I'm much more inclined to say "What if..." or "We should also consider..." to preface an opinion, such that consideration is required before dismissing what I've said.
My stepfather told me to never preface a counter-argument with "yeah, but". He told me that other people hear it as "I didn't listen to what you said, but am talking anyway."
Probably the most useful piece of advice I've ever heard regarding this kind of discourse: A mediator friend of mine once told me to always attempt to briefly recap the other person's point before beginning a counter-argument. That way they know you heard what they said, and they have the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies before you get going.
This simple exercise is more than just a trapping of mutualistic discourse. It actually forces you to think about their point, and leads to a greater understanding of what they are trying to say... which, in turn, allows you to waste less time by explaining a counterpoint to an argument that they didn't make.
I try to make myself do this even when I'm not arguing with someone. If a task comes to me from my boss, I will do my best to rephrase it in my own words (not verbatim, unless it's something really simple) to make sure we're on the same page.
People who do this in every conversation annoy the everliving hell out of me.
In a philosophical or rhetorical debate, it's an excellent strategy, but in day to day office conversations, ugh.
I think the nerd equivalent of this is "Well, actually...". Whenever I hear that, I kind of just mentally sigh and roll my eyes, and I say that as someone who identifies as a nerd with verbal communication issues.
My impression (as it might be wrong) is that the words "I think" are contextually appropriate depending on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want to voice an opinion for consideration but not push for it, then "I think" demonstrates your openness. If you are trying to argue for something directly and expect opposition, then you should state your case as directly and strongly as possible. A third option is when you are expected to be a voice of authority (ie. you're a tech and someone just asked you what Linux is). Authorities are supposed to know, and people will think you're BSing if you say "I think..." what you really know. I personally would prefer you admit if you're unsure, but some people would rather you act confident than disclaim.
I personally would prefer you admit if you're unsure, but some people would rather you act confident than disclaim.
For the third scenario, "it appears" can be useful, or if more justification is required, "it appears from the (server's behavior|available data|documentation I can find)." Then when you have to correct yourself later, it wasn't you who was misleading, but the situation. I find that this can be used in a completely honest way and often gives non-techy people a more accurate impression of the situation. It helps them understand both the tentative nature of your diagnosis and the obstacles you're struggling with. Win-win.
> A third option is when you are expected to be a voice of authority (ie. you're a tech and someone just asked you what Linux is). Authorities are supposed to know, and people will think you're BSing if you say "I thin
In that scenario "I think" is not to do with opinion but uncertainty (it can be used for both).
The definition of Linux is an established fact so if you know what it is there is no need for "I think".
That was my reasoning before too. It's a deep rabbit hole of mental reasoning and social signaling, not to mention self-consciousness. I've often felt that it ties into the programmer's constant pressure to achieve syntactic accuracy and efficiency at solving problems. Not to mention that awareness that we're constantly making many small mistakes or misjudgments while coding. (Aside: It's got to be having a profound effect on society, given the pioneering that technologists have done getting us into the age of social tools like the iPhone and Facebook.)
I've experimented with "What if" too. I imagine it works for others, but for me, and perhaps something about my tone of voice that I'm not realizing, it sounds patronizing, so it hasn't worked as well.
This reminds me of something Seymour Papert talked about when he was interviewed in "The Media Lab" by Stewart Brand, talking about an African conference on The New Math:
"... At a certain point the Nigerian delegation stood up and walked out. It was quite dramatic -- they were dressed in beautiful African robes. Then the meeting broke up and I had this conversation with one of the people from the Nigerian delegation who went by. 'Why did you walk out, what's going on?' 'I can't talk to these Americans.' (Nobody thought of me as an American.) 'Why not?' 'Because they say what they mean.'
"We're so brought up with the idea that communication fails when people don't say what they mean. The man explained, 'When two Americans have a conversation, each says what he thinks, and then there's a confrontation -- one's going to be right and the other one's going to be wrong. We don't do it like that. We sit around under the tree, and somebody says something, and somebody else does, and we talk and nobody has a position. It goes on for a long time, and maybe tomorrow, or eventually, everybody agrees on a position. Then everyone is right and there isn't anybody's point of view left out.'
I always feel silly adding it in, because of course what I'm saying is my opinion. What else would it be?
But I say it when I'm talking to people who need it.
I've always thought that the main reason for it is that most people are very easily threatened in their opinions, so without the "I Think", they can feel like they are being attacked.
But it could be that most people simply haven't been trained to differentiate fact and opinion on their own, so they need clear markers.
"I think" implies that it is just your opinion and that others may think differently. Omitting it implies certanty and fact. You may think that those two words have no meaning, but to many people they say a lot. Most people are not literal. Their words are loaded with additional layers of meaning.
For example, "I think the world was created 6k years ago," is a very non-threatening statement. It's just an opinion and by stating that it's just your thought, you imply that it's okay that others think differently. If you had said, "The world was created 6k years ago," you are stating a fact and inviting disagreement.
It is not about differentiating fact from opinion, but rather not understanding what implications you words have. "Sometimes what wasn't said is more important than what was said." The stereotypical geek might not understand
that, preferring a literal interpretation of everything.
Note: I caught myself using, "I think," three times when writing this comment.
The thing is, though, that people expect the inclusion of "I think" even when what you're stating is _obviously_ an opinion.
The statement "The world was created 6k years ago" could be a scientific/objective truth. So by adding "I think" people won't feel like a fool by disagreeing with you (otherwise they might be unknowingly disagreeing with a fact). On the other hand a statement like "Redheads are hot" is obviously an opinion. Prefacing that with "I think redheads are hot" sounds unnecessarily insecure to me, but I suspect most people would add the "I think" qualifier anyway.
I don't think it makes sense that a statement like "tomatoes are gross" is more threatening than "I think tomatoes are gross", but it might very well be the case.
On a tangent, I find that when people say something that I know to be (objectively) wrong, I tend to correct them by prefacing my opinion with "I think...", or "I heard that...", or "I read somewhere that...", and I always end my disagreement with a (tonal) question mark. Even when I make a statement or correct somebody, ending with a higher pitch (question mark style) works wonders to avoid offense.
I think you might be disregarding the part where he said the lack of a qualifier implies an invite to disagree.
It's actually a striking thought that hadn't occurred to me. Your prototypical geek enjoys discourse to refine a point. Inclusion of qualifiers such as "I think..." are antithetical _not because the implication of uncertainty invites argument, but because it dissuades discussion_. In short, if I say that I think something, I imply that I already know someone disagrees and yet I think it anyway. Further dialogue on that topic is dissuaded, because the first author implies that they're possibly already aware of your opinion.
I'll agree that when it is something that could be objectively proven it is a different league than when you are stating something subjective.
However, subjective statements can still grate people the wrong way. For example, if my wife were a redhead and you said, "Readheads are ugly." I would likely feel a bit unhappy that you just said my wife was ugly. If you said, "I think redheads are ugly." I would think, "That's fine, because I think my wife is hot."
And yes, I find "I heard that..." is a great way to bring up a counterpoint without making yourself out to be the opposition. It also allows you an easy out for dropping the subject if it doesn't look like they will change their mind or if you are wrong.
This is interesting, because it shows exactly the kind of miscommunication that I witness so often. Because "Redheads are ugly" is supposed to be interpreted as "I think most redheads are ugly and of course there are obvious exceptions." It's a generalization that has absolutely no bearing any individual person, so the thought "he thinks my wife is ugly" shouldn't even enter your mind (even though I understand that for many people it will).
Needless to say, this can still rub people the wrong way, exactly for the reasons you describe. So it's a social rule to never say anything negative when there is a positive substitute. Saying "I think blondes and brunettes are attractive" is always preferable to "I think redheads are ugly". Even though the one essentially implies the other.
The second thing I'd like to emphasize is that you said "I would think [...] that's fine". A lot of people would say, "My wife is a redhead" and instantly make the conversation take a turn for the worse. Exactly as you say, you have to give the other party an "easy out", and by stating "My wife is a redhead" you put the other guy's back to the wall.
I think the "easy out" rule is probably the one rule I see socially capable people violate the most.
A: "She's not my type."
B: "Why not?"
A: "I think redheads are ugly."
B: "My wife's a redhead."
A: "So?"
B: "Well..."
A: "Do you think she's ugly?"
B: "No."
A: "So, no problem!"
Yeah, "normal" people don't talk like that though. In a nerd setting I can imagine a conversation going like that, where every statement is made plainly and matter-of-factly.
Many people would read the "So?" as a confirmation that (a) you don't like redheads and (b) you know B's wife is a redhead so (c) you're insulting his wife on purpose, so (d) you're looking for a fight.
That's why you have to practice the correct social timing to cut in with "Do you think she's ugly?". If you're ashamed of your opinions--"Oh God, I think redheads are ugly, and thus have insulted his wife!"--they'll pick up on that and a fight may ensue. If you skip the illogical guilt and move on to the truth: "My opinion has no bearing on his wife being 'objectively' beautiful or not," you are much more prepared to avoid a violent confrontation, both in your diction and your demeanor.
Though it's probably easier to say "red-heads aren't really my type," which expresses the same sentiment but with less of a loaded word. Thus, you provoke a milder emotional response, have communicated your feelings honestly, and can go back to picking out cute girls sooner.
Taking Toastmasters, one thing tip they give about giving feedback to speakers is to preface your feedback with "I".
There's a big difference between:
"Your voice was too soft."
and
"I found your voice to be too soft."
In the first statement you are speaking for everybody. But just because you had that insight, doesn't mean everyone thought that way. In fact you might be the only person who thought that and by stating it as universal, you could cause the speaker to think it was a major problem.
This is what the article is addressing. When nerds give an opinion, they will say it as if it is a fact that everybody knows. It really turns me off wanting to discuss anymore with someone who does this as he believes his opinions are the opinions of everyone.
Like so many other things, "I think" usually doesn't have the literal meaning "I think." It indicates a low-to-moderate level of conviction. Stating something without saying "I think" (or doing something else to soften your statement) indicates a high level of conviction. It implies that people without a similar level of conviction should defer to your opinion. That's what people find objectionable.
" It implies that people without a similar level of conviction should defer to your opinion."
Really? How so? I understand that an opinion expressed without qualifiers may indicate a strong belief, but I don't get the implied "defer your opinion" part.
Perhaps this is something that some people infer, whether intended by the speaker or not? There are some people for whom every strongly voiced opinion is taken as a personal challenge, rather than being just one person's thoughts, typically offered without any supporting evidence. Hence flame wars and such.
Maybe people need to be encouraged to assume every expression has an implied "In my opinion ... " unless there is something offered to back it up.
I beg to differ; obviously no hard proof to back this up but I expect that "I think" is used to express an opinion as much as it is to express uncertainty.
Also uncertainty is presented in delivery and tone too; so distinguishing the two is relatively easy.
When uncertain main emphasis is on the word "think". In an opinion (where you have conviction) the emphasis is on "I"
I think it is more that a lot of people believe that everyone speaks in truths.
It's the reason why some people can listen to Fox News with a straight face. Fair and balanced yo.
cause they thought about their opinion and have good reasons to believe it's correct.
and they are open to debate. they aren't being closed minded. what they don't want or like is for you to say/think "that's just your opinion" and both not give a counter argument and also not accept they are right.
I find that most people find disagreement of any kind uncomfortable. So whether you're open to discussion or whether you've considered your opinions carefully is immaterial.
What else would it be? Fact, conjecture, a hypothetical that you don't currently believe, someone else's opinion, something you read on a bill board, demon possession, a marketing message, something you read in a book, something you learned via a diving method such as reading tea leaves... The list is actually quite long.
I say "I believe" if I don't have any facts to back it up, I don't say "I believe" If I do.
Leaving out "I think" tends to make people think that you are stating a fact that you learned somewhere or somehow, and that it's a step above a "normal opinion"; if that makes any sense. The offense comes in the future as well when they discover you told them something wrong with out the "I think" prefix. Stating opinion as fact is a sure fire way to loose the trust of colleagues.
> I've always thought that the main reason for it is that most people are very easily threatened in their opinions, so without the "I Think", they can feel like they are being attacked.
Probably because they have not thought much about why they hold the opinions they have, and are afraid of any external input that might force them to question their world view.
Prefixing a statement with "I think" signals that you are open to alternate theories. Without this prefix, social rules like "silence implies agreement" kick in.
It's funny to me that the article frames it this way. I understand the comment = opinion perspective now, but I grew up saying "I think" a lot for a different nerdy rationale: I considered my statements to be like logical propositions, and there's almost nothing you can be totally sure about, so why wouldn't you qualify? Otherwise you risk making false claims unnecessarily, which undermines the system we're building.
In my experience people prefer the "I think" when you are unsure of what you say, and to be clear when you know what you are talking about.
Odds are that a person that never ever say "I think" believes that his opinions are 100% right, witch nobody else will like(Mr Perfect) and a person that always says "I think" is insecure, weak, always depending of what other people think about me mentality.
For years I have been trying to learn not to say "I think" before every opinion I express.
As Strunk&White point out: it is redundant verbiage, if you say something it is because it represents what you think, only when you are saying something you don't think (eg., what somebody else thinks) does it make sense to clarify. You would never say "I think that he thinks ...", which is the logical conclusion of the advice the article gives.
Being humble and recognizing that you could be wrong is important, but there are better ways to express this than by preceding all you say with "I think".
Sadly my eloquence is still lacking so I keep automatically resorting to adding "I think" and similar filler, but I try to catch myself and instead think (pun not intended ;) about what I'm actually saying and how can express it more clearly.
In what way does this analysis of a caricature (based on sitcom character!) resemble reality? Is this really the most sophisticated thing we can say? that "nerds" don't like society because it's illogical?
Also, in my experience (including personal experience in the past and observing friends handling the same difficulties now), most of the inability to fit meet social norms is driven by fear more than any other factor.
I take this attitude, but for things like arbitrary table manners. I have a friend who doesn't understand the idea of wearing a suit to interviews. Or to some degree, button down shirts ("the buttonless kind covers me just fine"). So it varies.
I read an article in the Harvard Business Review relating to this some time ago. The author basically argued that social interaction comes from the limbic brain, so trying to learn it the way one would mathematics is awkward and misguided. The complex, inconsistent world of social cues simply has too many variables for logical processing, but each human is equipped with an older, instinctual understanding of this world that sometimes goes ignored or even repressed. Maybe the key to success here really is learning to stop thinking too hard and trusting one's instincts.
A good example is how we tell people they're being rude. Many nerds want an explicit, clear answer, maybe even a right/wrong mark or a grade. In reality, we respond to body language with body language. If everyone's avoiding your eyes or shooting you dirty looks, you've probably said a bad word. Sometimes it's more subtle, such as with the many meanings of crossed arms and angled stances.
I dealt with these challenges by studying acting. The practice of theater collects and refines centuries of study in body language, emotion and personal interaction. Even more importantly, it is a practice rather than a knowledge base, which matters if one believes that one physically cannot learn certain things from a book.
>social interaction comes from the limbic brain, so trying to learn it the way one would mathematics is awkward and misguided
Not just awkward and misguided, nearly impossible. I am an Aspie with an IQ of 156 and can barely maintain more than short, shallow conversations (unless I start monologuing which isn't a "conversation" but at least I'm doing some talking then).
Context? I have a natural tendency to start sentences with "I think" and the like, and I have to fight myself to NOT to use such phrasing on the job. Every "perhaps," "maybe," "why don't we ... ?" opens a door through which the other party can force his own agenda, I've found. This advice doesn't work in business.
I tend to think of sociability more in terms of the opportunity cost of Chinese-Walling blackboxed components. The cost of the time it takes to learn the muddled API of mores is the time that could be spent learning those muddled API's we actually find fascinating.
It is recursively self-reinforcing as well. An hour spent in hacking Smalltalk will get you more immediate and interesting (to us) results than an hour rehearsing small talk. Which choice will look more appealing the next time? Almost inevitably you will focus on those things that you're already good at, that provide tangible rewards.
Because you have a hard time rationalizing social norms doesn't mean they don't make sense at all. Nerds do have their social norms too (for instance, not caring about their physical appearance) and I would actually consider myself a nerd if it was not for the social part / lifestyle that goes with it. I'm probably going to get down voted for this :/
... provided you're allowed to continue your train of thought after the quick interruption/correction. Getting interrupted just because somebody wants to explore a different tangent can be very annoying.
I'm an Aspie, processing verbal information takes too much attention - if I wait until the other person is finished I will usually forget what I was going to say. And if interrupted I will usually be unable to continue. Normally, I just keep my mouth shut and don't say anything.
Is that common? I'd hate to think I was keeping him (and others silent). Is there anything I can do to help improve his interaction with me?
It doesnt worry me too much (except making conversations long and sometimes tiring) but I have noticed visitors to the office getting "mad" about it. I hate mentioning it because that just rude... but sometimes you just have to to avoid them snapping and embarrassing him.
He's quite embarrassed about it generally (even though there is no need to be with us - Im as crazy as they come) so I can't figure a good way to broach the subject with him. Even though I think it would be beneficial to discuss it and explain it's not a worry for us! Any tips/thoughts?
(as it happens he's well qualified for the job and does well at it - a bit more forgetful than most, but no biggie. He came to use after 15 rejections since leaving uni a year before and could barely speak in the interview. In the end my boss said, basically, "how can we turn him away". It was pretty disgusting how he was treated elsewhere)
The specific problems Aspies have vary a lot. Most have some problems with speaking and especially speaking up. But from what I have read my specific problems seem to be even more focused in those areas than most Aspies. Any pressure, such as interviews, makes it worse, I have fewer difficulties now than I used to, but I am 48 years old and have learned a lot of stress control techniques. I still "meltdown" under much pressure (for example an unexpected interview).
Why on earth would you want to potentially disseminate false information without interruption?
If i'm wrong, I want to be corrected. If someone else has an opinion on something i'm talking about that is so important that they feel they have to interrupt then AWESOME. We have a discussion on our hands. :)
If I'm wrong or providing way too much redundant detail to someone who already knows the information then yes, absolutely. Why waste both of our time? The dynamics of every conversation are a bit different though. That's why it's hard to make set rules.
> If nerds become the dominant consumer of any given entertainment, it's fucking doomed.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. I don't see the gaming industries (card-, board-, and video- varieties) going out of business. I'd even go as far as saying nerds popularized many of these.
Video games, to an extent. Though at least some of that comes from branching out into new genres that appeal outside of what would be considered traditional nerd interests. Sports games come to mind, for example.
World of Warcraft. MMORPGs were very squarely the domain of the archtypical basement-dwelling nerd - they were intensely mathematical (which is natural, given its D&D lineage), brutally punishing in the case of mistakes (corpse runs, XP loss), and tuned to the highly-methodical, cause-and-effect nerd mentality ("blind" crafting lists, week-long spawn timers, etc).
Then WoW came along, sucked out all the "nerd sauce", and replaced it with an easily-accessible set of rules that made the game approachable and appealing to the mass markets, and it has been wildly successful as a result. The nerd bits are still there, buried deep down, but the average player never has to touch them to fully enjoy the game.
Sure, if you play WoW, you're still a "nerd" by social standards, because hey, let's face it, you're playing an online role playing game in your underwear with hundreds of people you've never met, but there are a lot of people who we wouldn't classify as "nerds" that play the game.
Spot on. I'm one of those who eventually adapted to the way people are. Mostly. I even came to see all these customs as "true", in a perverse sense, just because people do in fact hold them in their minds. But internally, I still distinguish between things that are true independently of human social wiring, and things that are only "so" because a lot of people think so. And my loyalty is still mostly to the former, and this probably does still limit me socially, and perhaps even career-wise. But I'm not sure I would feel better about giving in than I feel about being a little limited in those ways.
I basically enjoyed the article, but not this message which I felt was underlying: nerds are too smart to "get" society, because social customs make no sense and only ordinary dumb people can tolerate their absurdity.
Society does have a logic to it - there are just a ton of axioms, and much empiricism is required to catch the nuances. But clearly empiricism is at least as important as theory when dealing with real-world phenomena: you have to stop and observe closely how gravity works, otherwise you may deduce very wrong conclusions from seemingly sound premises. (@aristotle i still luv u)
"In a sane world, I think, people would listen to what's coming out of your mouth"
Yes. And, that implies that you were not interrupted during that process!
A simple social rule that usually works is, "Never interrupt." This implies, of course, that the other social rule of "Provide others with period chances to speak (pauses, questions, etc.)" is also followed. Interruption is more difficult and nuanced. We all agree that we may interrupt anyone at any time if we notice a fire in the building. But, it gets more difficult from there.
In some cultures if you wait for the pauses, you will never be able to speak. I found this to be the case while living in Eastern Europe. The people there generally keep speaking until you interrupt. It's not considered rude though. They just assume you'll interrupt when you have something to say. If you don't interrupt, they'll keep talking.
Because society is basically one enormous, opaque device driver blob? It specifies an arbitrary input/output format so ugly that seeing the underlying reasoning would be an embarrassment.
> many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong
Not being interrupted in any kind of debate is TERRIBLE. It means the other guy will forget exactly what you said that he disagreed with. so then he'll argue with some vague memory of what you said. plus everything you said after the part where he disagreed is a waste of time.
i got into a big argument once because i wouldn't let someone finish their point b/c i knew they were going to forget what they said in the first half that was wrong and i didn't want to waste my time listening to the rest which was irrelevant.
> If nerds can master such arbitrarily complex things as the Linux operating and the complete rules of D&D, why can't they learn the rules of social norms?
Social norms actually are more complicated than D&D. There's more to know. If you actively play D&D for a year you could learn and remember all the rules. Learning all the social norms takes far longer -- even after your whole childhood including 4 years of high school very few people know all the norms, just most.
I enjoyed the point about prepending sentences with "I think." I have found that, during emotional discussions with friends or loved ones, it also behooves us to prepend many phrases with "I feel like."
The common nerd defense to this approach is to cry, "But I'm saying it... of course it's just my opinion!" or, "Of course it's just my feelings!" However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other people's emotions and opinions.
Additionally, "You don't consider my emotions enough" and "It feels like you don't consider my emotions enough" are two wildly different phrases, no matter which way you slice it.
By prepending that sentence with "it feels like," we profoundly alter its meaning. The first sentence indicates an objective truth for which the listener can be blamed. The latter sentence indicates nothing except the speaker's internal feelings, which--for the most part--cannot be consciously controlled.
No one is to blame for feelings: they simply are, and denoting a sentiment as "a feeling" rather than "a fact, which may be your fault," is a vital tactic for communicating constructively on a deep emotional level.
Many nerds approach debates and communication with a feeling of entitlement to being understood. "I have spent a lot of time learning what I know, and if someone else can't understand it when I explain it to them, it is their problem, not mine." Unfortunately, this leads to severe communication issues with everyone, including other nerds.
If you want someone else to understand something, and they don't get it, it is your problem as much as it is theirs. Maybe if you never have to deal with that person ever again, nor anyone else who they have to deal with, and so on, it is not your problem. But if they are a friend, colleague or loved one, it inarguably behooves you to go out of your way to make them understand what's going on in your head. Only mutual understanding of needs and desires will provide us with the opportunity to reach constructive conclusions to our problems.
> However, prepending a sentence with "I think/I feel like..." indicates that you are not one of those frustrating people who refuses to consider other people's emotions and opinions.
The only way to show that you are not one of those persons is by what you actually say and by displaying in your ideas an understanding of other people's emotions and options (or making explicit that you do not understand them but would like to).
Prepending "I think/I feel like..." is meaningless boilerplate that can be easily interpreted as condescending or hypocritical if your concern for other people's feelings and opinions is not actually reflected in what follows.
Read Judith Martin's "Miss Manners" books and newspaper columns if you want to learn how to determine what is right and what is wrong in social situations. She has a witty writing style, and she treats manners like a science.
And some, frustrated by the lack of coherency, will default to the "do unto others" rule - and be a royal pain in the ass, because many nerds actually like being interrupted in mid-sentence when they're wrong.
What, you mean other people don't? They prefer to continue on a lengthy and fundamentally incorrect statement when they could be saved the embarrassment quickly and painlessly after just a few words?
When talking about something meaningful, I speak to people in a way that humans should be spoken to. It's their fault for getting offended.
That is, I speak to people with the dignity of humans in mind, which is our power of inference. Speaking in a lesser way is disrespectful, like talking to people as if they were dogs. Yet, that is where most people are comfortable. That is the level of sanity which is promoted through most human society.
And this level of sanity is, frankly, animalistic and insane.
No, even if people don't like it, I won't grant them the indignity of being spoken to like an animal.
With that said, I've learned some leniency with this rule. Now, I'm basically sociopathically socially skilled in places where people can't communicate at my level -- pretty much the article's last two paragraphs. I understand wit and charm logically, and I can apply it quite consciously. I am, however, always disquieted that I have to entertain myself like this -- and as a byproduct, entertain others -- and yet, people don't realize that they're being tricked.
Bah. As long as I'm not talking to the layperson about something meaningful, I'm fine. I just really wish it didn't have to be this way.
Where is it written that people should be spoken to a certain way? I feel like you are exhibiting some signs of the very hubris that this article cautions against. Beware the conviction you feel so strongly that there is no possibility you could be wrong, and anyone who takes offense at your stance is simply getting what they deserve. That way lies anger and estrangement.
Everyone has different expectations about how they will be communicated with. It depends largely on how they were brought up, and what their brains learned to expect from certain verbal cues. If you really care about whether someone else understands what you are saying, it makes sense to meet in the middle.
I doubt it is your intention to offend people when you communicate honestly with them. Perhaps it would be constructive to respond to someone taking umbrage at your words by gently mentioning what you wrote in your second paragraph: "I'm sorry I offended you... it is not my intention to suggest that your opinions are worth less than mine. I know that I might be wrong, but it is far more efficient and honest to simply state my beliefs and opinions without cluttering my sentences with lots of extra fluff." At that point, the ball is in their court: they can choose to do the work and remind themselves that you are not trying to clobber their opinions, or they can decide that it isn't worth the effort.
At that point, it is your turn to decide whether it's worth the effort to change your speech patterns, or if you do not care about communicating with them enough to bother.
I was up all night finishing a project, and I am killing time right now staying awake, so understand if I'm not writing with precision.
When I said I speak to people the way humans should be spoken to, I meant that I am speaking to them with respect. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but keep in mind that I am talking specifically about conversations about meaningful things. So in order to avoid speaking dis-respectfully, I avoid these conversations if the other persons can't handle them.
When I say meaningful, I mostly mean things that can be dissected into components and analyzed using logic. It is painful to listen to some people talk about quantum mechanics, or even movies or books. They find a conclusion too soon, instead of relishing the antecedent ideas and facts. It takes the human power of inference to examine these preceding, and surrounding, ideas and to connect them in a way that makes sense (this is that human thing that I am respecting in my first paragraph, btw). And, it often takes more than one brain to do this well.
Okay, the problem is a little clearer: I am much more interested in the process of finding a precise conclusion than weighing the conclusion itself against another person's. I get the impression that most people perceive it as some kind of battle.
Also, keep in mind, I was talking specifically about laypeople, whose attitude is normally this: "don't mess with my opinion. That is sacred territory." And I am speaking about laypeople because they are the majority and tend to decide these social norms.
This is why I don't talk to them about meaningful things. It is too much like a minefield, where I'm talking myself in circles trying to avoid upsetting the other person. Think about talking to a fundamentalist christian about evolution, but you have to do it in a way that wont upset them. A layperson's thought process is jacked up just like that fundamentalist's. And it shows in how they want to speak to one another.
Again, that is why I choose not to engage in discussion about meaningful things with these people. I keep my head by engaging them with charm, humor, wit, anecdotes.... which is fine exercise and I'm rather good at it. I'm not a non-functioning nerd; I know tact very well.
I don't like it like this, but I accept it. I want to be able to talk to anybody about important things.
It's a good thing that I've picked good close friends and partners who know how to communicate well, and we never play the "you're not allowed to say that card," or the "you're not allowed to omit that card" hahaha. Funny how we never manipulate, lie, or have terrible arguments with one-another and yet people who uphold bad communication and these silly social pleasantries, their lives are wrought with unnecessary drama.
Please, let me know if there was anything else you would like for me to clarify. I haven't done an all-nighter in a long time, so it's hard for me to tell if I'm being clear or if I read your comment clearly.
"Another danger is that childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."
I sincerely hope it's not your case. We need more Mozarts.
Correlation, meet causation. The people who are confident enough to omit "I think" are the ones that have ideas that other people like. If you come up with bad ideas but never use "I think", you will not get ahead. Conversely, if you always come up with great ideas, nobody will care that you said "I think"; they care that you solved the problem.
People are not as dumb and idiosyncratic as bloggers think they are.
1. Society does make sense.
2. People ought to tell you when you do something rude. At that time they can offer the reason (there is a reason).
3. The people in the example are poorly socialized.
4. The socially skilled are just as rare as the mathematically skilled. The average person is just as atrocious socially as mathematically.