Overconfidence May Be a Result of Social Politeness 263
An anonymous reader writes "Joyce Ehrlinger from Florida State University has researched this very phenomenon, and has led her to present a paper called 'Polite But Not Honest: How an Absence of Negative Social Feedback Contributes to Overconfidence' at the American Psychological Association's annual conference in Orlando on Friday. Social norms, Ehrlinger says, are the reason that we are averse to giving negative feedback. Her research recreated everyday social situations in which we hold back from giving our own negative views."
spoonful of sugar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:spoonful of sugar (Score:4, Interesting)
Look there is a difference between being an A-hole and just saying it like it is. But sugar coating and wrapping criticism in a shroud of BS is counter productive and often leads people to 'not get it'. If one does something wrong, say it, and say it straight forward, no sugar, no BS.
Re:spoonful of sugar (Score:5, Insightful)
negative feedback is acceptable if given constructively and pleasantly
That's a nice notion, but unfortunately it only works some of the time, as different people react differently to different stimuli
Some takes direct criticism well, others may not.
Some are enlightened by the hinted enclosed within the sweet-coating, but others do not
Look there is a difference between being an A-hole and just saying it like it is. But sugar coating and wrapping criticism in a shroud of BS is counter productive and often leads people to 'not get it'.
Not all "not getting it, some do
As different people react differently to different stimuli, you do have to tailor-made (or customized) the criticism / sarcasm / suggestion to suit the personality of the intended target
Re: (Score:2)
I lived a year and a half with some friends in collective.
We shared a fridge, and I had a top shelf...and i had a tendency to sorta pile my jars and such so they fell over. My rather...grumpy and several synonymous of that adjective friend did point that out.
If something spilled it would land on his shit.
One day I noticed some sticky brown sauce on his shelf and groceries...was a bit of a mystery at first, wasn't sure if it was a red wine vinegar bottle or not, until I assured him that it was.
Well...I was
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is claiming you should stand there and take it.. if someone was being that much of an asshole to my flatmates as well as just me, and then had the gall to physically hit me while I was trying to help tidy up, I'd probably punch him in the solar plexus. That might have shocked him enough to think about how much of an asshole he was being, or at least to stop treating you like a doormat.
I often try to be patient with bad situations, and usually I'm quite shy and unwilling to risk insultin
Re: (Score:2)
How they take it is their problem, not yours. You only have to make sure that the information is delivered correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't care about the end result, why get involved in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
I seldom get involved in anything except when I see people complain about something that I have a formed opinion about (in this case I am more interested in knowing whether I am right or in having my opinion refuted) or when my judgement is explicitly requested (in which case I would not be honest if I sugar coated my opinion). It is extremely uncommon for me to criticize anything directly unless it has a direct impact in my life a
Re: (Score:2)
negative feedback is acceptable if given constructively and pleasantly
its a convincing point, but the problem seems to be with the three terms (negative, constructively, pleasantly) in the statement which are relative and vary from person to person.
Re:spoonful of sugar (Score:5, Informative)
negative feedback is acceptable if given constructively and pleasantly
Not always. When I was a kid, I was a real brat and a complete nuisance at school, both for my schoolmates and for teachers, and didn't realize it. School officials tried time and time again to talk to me "about my future", call my parents in to have a chat about my latest antics in a pleasant, non-hurtful, Mr. Mackey sort of way, to no avail.
And one day, 20 kids ganged up on me and beat the shit out of me outside school. I got the message. It was one of the most important lessons of my life.
So no, being pleasant isn't always constructive.
Re:spoonful of sugar (Score:5, Funny)
So humans evolved manners so they could avoid getting the shit kicked out of them by their peers! Who would have thought?
Re: (Score:2)
We're social animals.
Re: (Score:3)
I got in a lot of fights as a kid and had a lot of issues. The more people tried to force me to do things the more I'd fight back. I got lucky and after leaving 3 schools ended up in a specialist one which had an ethos of non-confrontation and staff who were trained to reason with students. It was a school of about 30 kids that a normal school couldn't contr
Re: (Score:2)
A quite reasonable interpretation of human history is that more issues have been settled by force than by reason.
Well, I don't think it's reasonable to beat people up merely for disagreeing with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe explaining your reasonable belief will stop people who are currently kicking the crap out of you?
What does that have to do with what I said? All I did was disagree with the actions of those who beat him up. I never said anything about believing that disagreeing will stop them.
you seem to be unable to comprehend that something can happen or a state true regardless of whether or not you believe that is something that only reasonable, enlightened people would do, or represents a morally correct situation.
No, that's just your own straw man.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks to me like I was mocking the ones who beat him up. I don't see where I said anything about him.
Re:spoonful of sugar (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the person. Some people take negative feedback hard, and become discouraged. Some people take it well, and become driven to do better.
Same with positive feedback, actually. Some people take it poorly and become overconfident. Some see it only as an affirmation of their progress.
The only difference is, the person giving feedback would feel worse for giving negative feedback and having the person take it badly, than giving positive feedback with the negative reaction. This kind of feedback is ultimately not about the person receiving it, it's about the person giving it. It's about feeling good for that person, rather than doing good.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
After 17 years programming video games, I've found that the people who can't take criticism are known as artists.
Re:spoonful of sugar (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
don't architects consider themselves to be artists?
Re: (Score:2)
don't architects consider themselves to be artists?
Which is why it was a hilarious two-way slight. In two words, no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I though this site used American-english?
Re:spoonful of sugar (Score:5, Funny)
Not news (Score:5, Informative)
It's been just about impossible to criticize the religious beliefs of anyone for decades, and it's almost impossible to curb inappropriate and in-your-face religious behaviors because of the sacrosanct rule that religion is somehow immune to interference from the secular world, and that's why religious craziness around the world is on the rise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever try to tell a Libertarian that has drunk the kool-aide that their free market liberty is swapping big government inefficiency [ineffectiveness which protects all of us -- read Heinlein] for a Darwinian construct that has no moral or ethical foundation? Libertarian Religion [sorry the political party and their weak sister Tea Baggers] is bad for the present and worse for the future... Don't they realize the "death panels" of "free market health care insurance" is already sitting-- they're called actuari
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
So irrationality does not occur in just religion... it happens in politics and probably every other human endevor...
Yes, but you can have political debates. You can't have true religious debates: when people run out of argument, they pull the "faith" card and the discussion is over. And we're all supposed to respect faith as if it was unattackable by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof." You can think of faith as being an axiom. "As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."
That is why atheists arguing with believers is pointless. Each has their own axioms, and to change those would require an event that would cause them to re-examine their entire lives. An argument at a cocktail party or over teh interweb isn't going to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't actually been in any political debates have you?
People do the same thing in political debates too. Whether the issue is "which god is the almightiest" or "do people have a right to free health care", it's all faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is. At least according to my mother. She always said "don't argue with crazy people".
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've seen, both political and religious debates tend to degenerate into "everyone who disagrees with me is evil or stupid or both" pretty fast. There are numerous reasons for this, from trying to oversimplify the world to a kind of magical thinking where everything will be fine if you just perform certain rituals (oppose anything Ob
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity used to be so evolved they didn't think the religions that told you to vote certain parties or abolished you from eating certain foods, were ever coming back.
Never happened. Never will.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you heard a politician listen anyone except themselves or those who pays for their campaigns?
Quite often at the legislative level. The handwritten note is taken quite seriously by most of the US House of Representatives, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever try to tell a Libertarian that has drunk the kool-aide that their free market liberty is swapping big government inefficiency [ineffectiveness which protects all of us -- read Heinlein] for a Darwinian construct that has no moral or ethical foundation?
Ever try to argue rather than just tell people stuff? In a legitimate argument, you'd be corrected in that government, especially "big" government, is also a construct, possibly Darwinian as well, which has no moral or ethical foundation either. That's the case for most of human endeavors and tools. The hammer can be used to build a house or cave in someone's face. The hammer doesn't care which.
Libertarian Religion [sorry the political party and their weak sister Tea Baggers] is bad for the present and worse for the future...
Use of the excessively insulting term, "tea baggers" is not a sign of a serious argument. Calling a belief a "religion" merely because you disagree with it is not a sign of a serious argument.
Don't they realize the "death panels" of "free market health care insurance" is already sitting-- they're called actuaries?
No, and you don't either. The actuary just reports actual rates of some occurrence, here, death, illness, etc in a population. They make no decision over how much treatment is enough.
When treatment is not a function of the wallet of the patient, then someone has to decide when too much treatment has been given. It almost never will be the patient and family who isn't paying the cost of their treatment directly. That's when the so-called "death panels" come in. Someone has to control costs or the medical system in question ceases to function.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever try to tell a Libertarian that has drunk the kool-aide that their free market liberty is swapping big government inefficiency [ineffectiveness which protects all of us -- read Heinlein] for a Darwinian construct that has no moral or ethical foundation?
Except that Darwin knew better. "Survival of the fittest" as interpreted by ideologues assumes that only the biggest, baddest, nastiest and most selfish will succeed. No cute little kittens or butterflies for them. No altruism for the sake of the whole (species) at the expense of the individual.
Free markets aren't usually stable even absent external (e.g. government) meddling. They tend to degenerate into monopolies thanks to positive feedback processes. Or, more succinctly: "Nothing Succeeds like Success".
the bad news pall bearer (Score:3)
Makini Brice, I know you can write better ... if only someone would deliver the sad news: you have no brain, or your choose not to use it. You can't even come up with "bell the cat" or "free rider problem" while you pussy-foot through the bullshit slough? Not even the five-bell go-to cliches handed out as black-tie MSM fig leaves of faux decorum by the maitre-d' at the Michelin-rated nudist resort? Shame on you.
I've belled more than my fair share of cats in my day, including some with a history of emerg
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the point of arguing with religious persons? Religion requires one to ignore reality and the evidence to the contrary before them (that's why they have "faith"). You would not be a religious person if you did otherwise.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Informative)
"I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged." -- Thomas Jefferson
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
(But of course we have the objection that certain "religions" have done those very things, even today. In which case we might rightly oppose them.)
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
nitpick (Score:3)
Try millenia, "blasphemy" at least in western Europe is very old, with punishment varying depending on the century & country.
Re: (Score:3)
i could be wrong..
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if God loves those loonies, then God is the top asshole himself...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can criticize religion, however doing so in the US makes you automatically the Bad Guy.
Being an atheist automatically divides you into a different group than most of America. It doesn't mean everyone will hate you, or that you can't criticize religion; it means you are a minority, and most people will think you are wrong.
If you need to be comforted by the support of crowds, then don't be an atheist.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but since atheism would appeal best to those not in need of artificial comforts, it probably works out fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but since atheism would appeal best to those not in need of artificial comforts, it probably works out fine.
You would hope so, but if you've ever hung out with a crowd of 'skeptics,' you would realize that often they very much do need the comfort of a crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Slack, huh? (Score:2)
To others, anyone who cuts religion any slack is automatically the Bad Guy.
Unless it's the Church of the SubGenius, of course.
Joyce Ehrlinger is Stupid (Score:3, Funny)
Counterpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward: FROST PIST
What the Moderators do: -5 Off Topic
What the Anonymous Coward sees: +5 Attention.
This is not how negative feedback was supposed to work.
Re:Counterpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward: FROST PIST
What the Moderators do: -5 Off Topic What the Anonymous Coward sees: +5 Attention.
This is not how negative feedback was supposed to work.
The goal of the moderation here isn't to teach the dude the error of his ways. It wasn't meant to punish him. I don't care if he was gratified by the "attention" he got. If he did, more power to him, let him keep posting it.
The point is that I don't browse at -1, so I didn't see his comment. Slashdot was therefore a better experience for me, and the moderation worked exceedingly well.
Retort (Score:2)
It's all that old "Self Esteem" nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
One can be polite, and even friendly, while still giving negative feedback. This "no negative feedback" bullshit is a result of those defunct social theories that we had to bolster kids' self-esteem at the cost of truth.
As far as I am aware, this is the first time this has been a significant problem. As polite as societies have been in the past, negative feedback has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
One can be polite, and even friendly, while still giving negative feedback. This "no negative feedback" bullshit is a result of those defunct social theories that we had to bolster kids' self-esteem at the cost of truth.
I believe that it's related to the widespread confusion of form and substance.
You can point at issues in someone's performance in a very nice manner and alternatively you can give some praise in a very displeasing way.
It could also be connected to the fact that it's often confusing to like and not like something at the same time and possibly for the very same reasons (btw, that's ambivalence [wikipedia.org]).
Encouraging someone does not require lying.
Overconfidence may be a weakness (Score:5, Funny)
But what's the alternative when you're running an empire? Faith in your friends?
I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
The average person of today is not made of the right stuff to run empires. The assertion is laughable. For the most part, those that are destined for the path of empire, are not raised in the artificial and limited "positive" and "negative" worldview framework, but the continuum of reality. Which includes every form of positive, negative, and mixture thereof.
Rather, it is the "slave" class that is raised to be afraid of the full range of human emotion and communication. Of course this leads to pervasive dishonesty and corruption which is why we end up with huge failures like Fukushima. It gets very hard to cut the crap and get to authentic facts and make quality decisions using facts. Most of the world is like this -- long on crap and short on facts -- including the individuals, the corporations, and the governments. Nothing of quality can be built on a foundation of dishonesty.
But you can go back to running your empire. Even if it is only in your favorite online game.
I guess you're not a Star Wars fan.
David Wong's Take (Score:3, Interesting)
Relevant:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html [cracked.com]
Expected Value (Score:3)
My interpretation: Social politeness did not spring up out of nowhere accidentally. There are good reasons for it. One is: The expected value to myself, if I were to correct some total stranger -- and risk their displeasure, argumentation, lost time, possible hostility -- is pretty much nil.
What do I care if some doofus loudmouth on the bus, or a convenience store, or a random psychological experiment I got thrown in, thinks they're funny or has nutjob political or religious beliefs? The chance of my opinion changing them is close to zero. Aside from that, the time and hassle expense to my day is probably significant; the chance of their reacting in a defensive and hostile manner is pretty high. Aside from that, my chance of running into them again ever in my life, such that I receive some later benefit is also nil. Hence the politeness protocol of smiling noncommittally and getting the hell away from them.
(Side issue: I've never understand "road age" of the ilk "I'll teach that bastard a lesson!". Given someone that cuts you off, you'll never see them again, so any lesson you could conceivably give won't generate you any benefit. Let 'em go and maximize your distance from the crazies.)
Now, if someone is being truly irrational and is an intimate of yours, such that you have to deal with them all the time, then the equation changes; being honest with them will hopefully improve your mutual relationship and time spent together. Conjecture -- Perhaps a society which increases mobility, depersonalization, and time spent with strangers has a propensity to become more and more dishonest and delusional.
Well... (Score:3)
Any conversation over the internet should quickly solve that problem.
dont forget the converse. (Score:2)
According to this theory, if you are dont get negative feedback it makes you confident so you act polite and dishonest then conversely if you get a lot of negative feedback it makes you unsure of yourself so you are rude but truthful. I get a lot of flack for pointing these kind of things out but this this theory is total bunk.
OH SHIT! PARADOX!
"You didn't lose, you were the last winner" (Score:5, Interesting)
George Carlin [youtube.com] totally warned us.
true especially in the workplace (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience this overconfidence as a result of politeness is true in my workplace, and in past workplaces as well.
Being generally polite, and not giving explicit negative feedback to annoying, unfunny, awkward, disrupting people finds justification in a kind of tacit, unconscious consent to be accepting and tolerant of everyone.
This works kinda all right, and makes it for a peaceful, sometimes even happy environment, and reduces the chances for conflict.
I have witnessed two scenarios where this politeness strategy fails utterly to both create a pleasant environment and to avoid conflict.
One scenario is that of a massively disrupting individual, who is not aware of the consequences of his words and actions.
Sometimes, like a current temporary colleague of mine, the guy is actually not a bad person at all, he is just not very perceptive of subtle signals (like awkward silences etc), looks very much emotionally vulnerable and unstable, which makes it undesirable to confront him about the issue, and has probably never been explicitly and seriously criticized for his disruptive behavior, resulting in a combination of fragility and overconfidence.
Responding to such an individual seems to cause problems whichever strategy is employed (honesty, politeness, etc).
The other scenario is that of a smart, socially-aware, perceptive, self-serving truly evil person.
These people analyze these social situations carefully and are able to detect these weaknesses in the social construct, and take advantage of them. They are therefore able to belittle, disrupt, take advantage of, subvert, out-compete their co-workers, because they know that if they are subtle enough, if they target their attacks carefully enough, nobody will directly accuse them of anything.
Note that I know that I myself have issues with detecting more subtle messages, and I know that my ego is vulnerable to lack of negative feedback as well. I try to ask people around me for truthful advice when in doubt, but in general I profit from this tolerant, polite social construct as well.
I am not sure about how to organize a better social construct that is both honest and peaceful and tolerant, and I am not sure it is possible to do it in a perfect way for all situations and for all compositions of individuals.
It seems to be a long standing problem with establishing and enforcing norms in societies.
Re: (Score:2)
One scenario is that of a massively disrupting individual, who is not aware of the consequences of his words and actions.
Ah .. manager!
The other scenario is that of a smart, socially-aware, perceptive, self-serving truly evil person.
And let me guess? Salesperson?
This is very much an American cultural thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to bring up something like Americal Idol (and its predecessor Pop Idol) in somewhere like Slashdot, but I think it's relevant.
In the UK Pop Idol, the judges were always honest - if they found someone who couldn't sing, they told them they couldn't sing. They told them to not give up the day job, to abandon their dream of being a pop star. On the flip side, if they were good, the judges said so - and because of that it really meant something.
In the few bits of American Idol I've seen, it's totally different. The judges (I seem to remember Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson in particular) when presented with someone who clearly didn't have a hope in hell of becoming a star of any kind, tied themselves in knots trying to say something positive. They just didn't ahve it in them to say "You're not a singer, forget about it". They'd say "You need to work hard to improve your rhythm" or " You're great but you're just not what we're looking for", and so on. Simon Cowell gave much more honest opinions and built a huge business out of doing it - but he was seen as Captain Negativity, the joke one, with the other two encouraging the no-hopers to keep their dream.
The result? People in the UK who got that negative feedback accept (sometimes reluctantly) that they won't ever be a star and go back to singing in the shower and leading a normal life. People in the US don't have that reality check, so keep on trying, making themselves look more and more ridiculous, desperate and above all untalented.
This kinda explains the current problems in the UK (Score:2)
The UK is by far the most hypocritical place I've ever lived in with regards to honest feedback - around here the feedback you hear is always a 7 or an 8 on a scale of 10 (everything is great or wonderful, even when it's shit), to the point that if you comment that something was "nice" (i.e. a 6 out of 10), people feel insulted (you see, "nice" is what people say around here when they mean "not nice").
Coming from Holland (home to some of the most direct, straight-talking people in the face of the planet), t
Big problem for geeks in Japan. (Score:2)
A: Konnichiwa :)
B: Waaa, nihongo jouzu desu ne!!!
As usual, the problem starts with parents (Score:3)
IMO the problem starts with a generation of parents that were told to only give positive feedback and encourage every little effort by their child to improve "self esteem". These children grew into adults that don't know how to handle *any* criticism, even when constructive. This resulted in social norms against being critical, even in a constructive way, because too many people were getting butt-hurt over every little criticism.
And that's how we get a generation of jerks who think they are perfect.
Re:That's where subtle hints and irony get in. (Score:4, Interesting)
Then use sarcasm, which is a form of irony everybody understands. Be prepared to get your teeth knocked out regularly though, because good sarcasm usually insults the intended recipient a lot more than plain statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Then use sarcasm
My gods, it's Doug Pirhana [youtube.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
I jest. I don't know you from Adam. I'm sure your tombstone teeth fit your mouth perfectly.
Oops, I did it again. Honestly, I'm jesting. I did start with "I don't mean to insult you"
People of adult age rarely get their teeth kicked in. You'd break their shoes for starters.
Sorry, honestly, I really am. Your other posts on this thread have been very thoughtful for someone with a mouth like a graveyard.
Seriously, being sarcastic in th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have noticed two things related to this:
1. The term `irony` is often used to refer to heavily-veiled passive aggression.
1a. I think Millon provides a great description of the sort of behavior we all have encountered, although no longer (as of DSM-IV) considered a personality disorder: "They cannot decide whether to adhere to the desires of others [...] or to to turn to themselves [...], whether to be obediently dependent on others or defiantly resistant and independent of them, whether to take the initiat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Joke aside, that's because your fellow slashdotters can destroy your comment reputation *anonymously*. You'd be surprised how ordinary, polite folks can turn into nasty, mean sonsabitches when they can hide their names and faces. TFA was dealing with people who know and see each other, and go out of their way to avoid social confrontation.
This said, you deserve your comment reputation ruined :)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Penny Arcade: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 [penny-arcade.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Joke aside, that's because your fellow slashdotters can destroy your comment reputation *anonymously*. You'd be surprised how ordinary, polite folks can turn into nasty, mean sonsabitches when they can hide their names and faces. TFA was dealing with people who know and see each other, and go out of their way to avoid social confrontation.
This said, you deserve your comment reputation ruined :)
How do you know they're only nasty mean sonsabitches when they can hide their names and faces? I'm a nasty mean sonofabitch to talk to all the time, and if anyone discovers they have a problem with that, I'm happy to knock their teeth out and fuck their sister.
Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why i always speak the truth, no matter how blunt.
That is where the phrase, "Honesty doesn't always win friends, but it influences people." comes from.....I think
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, phrasing is important. I once told an author who had me proofread their work that my main critique was that it was an Idiot Plot [tvtropes.org]. It's a technical term, but the author sure didn't perceive it that way, and was very much not happy with me... It would have been much more effective to simply say, "Now why didn't character X do the logical course of action, Y, and completely avoid this whole mess?"
Sort of like this. [google.is] ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I once told an author who had me proofread their work that my main critique was that it was an Idiot Plot.
A writer, on fact any artist, should welcome blunt honesty, because theres way too little of it, and is always constructive, whereas positive feedback is not. I get a swelled head sometimes from comments in my journals praising my writing, until I realize that ten times as many people who've seen it probably hate it than love it -- but the ones who hate it don't bother commenting or coming back, which i
Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton (Score:4, Insightful)
This is especially annoying when learning a language. I *want* people telling me all the time when I'm saying a word wrong or phrasing something poorly. But for most people, if they can understand what you meant to say, they just leave it at that. I just found out recently that after all this time, all of the times I had meant to say "I have been (verb-ing)" I'd instead been saying "I had been (verb-ing)". That's not a little mistake! Geez, people, why didn't anybody call me on it until now?
Re: (Score:2)
My German friend used the word "Prepone" in conversation not so long back. The opposite of "Postpone", he meant. He made it up. I knew what he meant, but it's not an English word. It turns out that the Indians made it up too. Great. Fantastic. Not a word I
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you assume that the language I was talking about was English?
Also, a lot of times, coined words are to try to express concepts that don't exist in other languages. For example, a common nickname for the bankers who caused the Icelandic financial crisis is the "útrásarvíkingar". Víkingar is, of course, "vikings", but there's no direct English equivalent for "útrás"; the term is generally translated as "outvasion vikings", since útrás is the opposite of innr
Re: (Score:2)
So how, exactly, is it better for me to have been going for a long time saying "had been" when I meant "have been", instead of being corrected once and that being the end of it?
Nothing sticks in the brain so well as being corrected. The more embarrassing or humiliating the correction, the more it sticks in the brain. I'm never going to forget saying "defective pants" (instead of jeans) or saying I eat "moldy potatoes" (instead of "lots of potatoes") or things like that. Because the mistakes were dramatic
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be US specific. As a French student in the US, I was amazed at how much attention was paid to feelings, and how little was paid to, you know, tangible reality, such as who was right or wrong in clear-cut cases where there *was* a right and wrong answer.
Constant praise and tip-toeing around issues not only inspires overconfidence, it also deprives people from a chance to correct their mistake, and to learn to handle failure. And since people are not *that* stupid, it also gives them a strong sense that everything is fake. Constant praise is very much like no praise.
Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton (Score:5, Interesting)
When I first started learning Japanese (not my current language of study) and was traveling in Japan, I was taught an important rule by another person learning the language: you know you're getting good at the language when people *stop* complimenting you on how well you speak it.
Over here, the rule is a bit different: you know you're getting good based on how often strangers try to switch the language of the conversation to English.
With almost ninety guns per one hundred people. (Score:3)
The US [wikipedia.org] is perhaps a good place to be polite. Robert A. Heinlein [brainyquote.com] noted, "An armed society is a polite society." Okay. That may be a bit of hyperbolic humor. But, whatever the reason, in my experience your cross-cultural observation is correct.
I once had a French boss. An editor to be exact. He was blunt to the point of cruelty from my point of view. Others also found him so -- especially the Americans. But we published a damned good magazine. And I learned a lot from him. And, to be fair, he was as hard on
Re: (Score:3)
An interesting implication is that, since people expect to be praised for a mediocre job, actually getting criticized means you must have done something beyond terrible. Basically you have to calibrate your response according to how people will perceive it. If the person did an slightly bad job, show disappointment. If they did a really bad job, show disapproval. If they did a really bad job, criticize it. If they did a catastrophically terrible job, then it's time to let lose hell.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Always? That's a good way to end up unemployed and with no friends to be blunt with.
Which is why he's obviously lying.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Fake and insecure people annoy the piss out of me.
I have relatively few friends (51 if you ask Facebook, and that includes family; less if you count people I actually hang out with [or would if they weren't on the other side of the country]) and I recognize the reason for this as my blatant honesty. Those people who remain in my life appreciate the honesty, which is why I'm typically the first person they come to; everyone else did not, they were fake and they wanted me to be fake, as well, and I'm ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's what politicians suck for breakfast (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you'd end up with politicians who reluctantly take upon themselves a big responsibility instead of a sociopath's powergrab.
Re:Please tell that to Hillary Clinton (Score:5, Funny)
You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?
Please tell that to Hillary Clinton
No, Hillary was his wife. You're thinking about Monica...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?
Please tell that to Hillary Clinton
No, Hillary was his wife. You're thinking about Monica...
Suckers...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?
Please tell that to Hillary Clinton
No, Hillary was his wife. You're thinking about Monica...
Suckers...
Hillary too?
No, tell that to Monica Lewinsky (Score:2)
>>"You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?"
>"Please tell that to Hillary Clinton"
No, tell that to Monica Lewinsky. Because she did suck. Or at least the president told us so, and, he was the spouse to Hillary Clinton at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends if you want volume or quality, like everywhere else!
Re:Why Muslims think they're the religion of peace (Score:5, Insightful)
In every office, standing by the water cooler, there is a person. Let's call him Joe. Joe tells stories about his weekend, followed by jokes about his in-laws, and everyone politely laughs as they shuffle around him to get their cup of water. "Why does Joe continue telling these jokes?" everyone wonders.
That's the first few lines of TFA.
Later:
Since society has taught us not to hurt other people's feelings, we rarely hear the truth about ourselves, even when we really deserve it. And sometimes that politesse can have negative ramifications.
Now, let's translate them to other people who do not share your understanding of Islam:
In every office, standing by the water cooler, there is a person. Let's call him Achmed. Achmed tells stories about his religion, followed by assumptions about how it is a religion of peace, and everyone politely agrees as they shuffle around him to get their cup of water. "Will he cut my head off if I tell him I think that is total BS?" everyone wonders.
[...]
Since society has taught us to expect our head to be cut off by any muslim we disagree with, we rarely hear the truth about ourselves, even when we really deserve it. And sometimes that fear can have negative ramifications.
Except that you didn't read TFA and just shat a comment out of your hate filled mouth (keyboard).
Why should I care (and why am I feeding the troll)?
I'm not a muslim/theist anymore, but I was born muslim and have some family and friends who still are.
None of them have ever cut my head off or that of any other person who disagreed with them. Nevertheless everyday I see scum such as you spewing hate left and right about shit you don't even care to try to understand and getting ignored (at best) or modded +1 I-too-hate/fear-muslims.
(Yea I'm new here, I expect people to RTFA)
Re: (Score:2)
In every office, standing by the water cooler, there is a person. Let's call him Joe. Joe tells stories about his vacation to the Middle East, followed by racist jokes about Muslims, and everyone politely laughs as they shuffle around him to get their cup of water. "Why does Joe continue telling these jokes?" everyone wonders.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, many (if not most) "internet haterz" are just trolling, acting out, and generally trying to be disruptive. They're not being honest, just spiteful.