Jumping to Conclusions

[sethoflagos]

Some of you familiar with my posting style probably realise that my understanding of psychology is close to zero. Perhaps you can help raise it a notch or two.

I'm sure all of us at some point or other have read a post that exposed our ignorance. @Mordred and @Markus Hanke for example frequently leave me feeling exposed as an idiot without seeming to pause for breath. But I do exit that thread a little less of an idiot.

So why do a number of us seem to automatically assume that such exposure of our ignorance was intentional and malicious?  No names no pack drill. Just curious.

Edited February 17, 2023 by sethoflagos
too many buts

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

So why do a number of us seem to automatically assume that such exposure of our ignorance was intentional and malicious? 

Usually - though not invariably - one of two reasons: We already feel insecure in our grasp of the subject and fear exposure of our weakness.  or The impression is correct drawing attention to some shortfall in our understanding really is intended to humiliate. It depends largely on how accurately the other person represented our point, what aspect of it they criticized and how they worded the response. 

[sethoflagos]

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It depends largely on how accurately the other person represented our point, what aspect of it they criticized and how they worded the response.

This sounds highly inferential. How would it work for say a Dutch poster who may not catch English nuances accurately and was culturally conditioned to respond in blunt fashion?

[exchemist]

30 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Some of you familiar with my posting style probably realise that my understanding of psychology is close to zero. Perhaps you can help raise it a notch or two.

I'm sure all of us at some point or other have read a post that exposed our ignorance. @Mordred and @Markus Hanke for example frequently leave me feeling exposed as an idiot without seeming to pause for breath. But I do exit that thread a little less of an idiot.

So why do a number of us seem to automatically assume that such exposure of our ignorance was intentional and malicious?  No names no pack drill. Just curious.

I think it is disconcerting to find that something you thought you knew is wrong, especially when it relates to a subject area that you regard as your citadel of knowledge, i.e. helps to define your self-image. I'm now old enough to tread increasingly carefully, even there, as I'm finding a false memories sometimes catching me out. This is a phenomenon I expect to become more pronounced in the years to come. 

But taking exposure of error or ignorance as a deliberate attempt to belittle is something else. Normally I think most of us can tell whether someone is just correcting us or whether they are using it as an excuse to indulge in patronising or point-scoring. But perhaps some are over-sensitive and imagine negative motives when there are none. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by exchemist

[StringJunky]

Perhaps some academics fall into the trap of expecting too much of themselves and feel they shouldn't come up short in their area of interest in a discussion.

My thoughts generally on this:Those who never made a mistake, never made anything. If we are talking to people who expose gaps in our knowledge, they are the ones to be held onto for more. It's all about how it's delivered. I'm not in this category, but if one has a pHD I suppose some people assume one has very extensive knowledge of a a subject, but it's actually only in the basics. As one rises through academia, specialistion increases depth at the expense of breadth.  

We can't know everything.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by StringJunky

[sethoflagos]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Perhaps some academics fall into the trap of expecting too much of themselves and feel they shouldn't come up short in their area of interest in a discussion.

My thoughts generally on this:Those who never made a mistake, never made anything. If we are talking to people who expose gaps in our knowledge, they are the ones to be held onto for more. It's all about how it's delivered. I'm not in this category, but if one has a pHD I suppose some people assume one has very extensive knowledge of a a subject, but it's actually only in the basics, As one rises through academia, specialistion increases depth at the expense of breadth.  

We can't know everything.

 

I really like this! The ultimate goal of an education system is to teach you everything there is to know about nothing! 

Yes. it's a reductio ad absurdum but it's also very funny. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by sethoflagos

[joigus]

I always try to apply simple formulas. One that works for me is: Mean well and everything will take care of itself when a misunderstanding appears.

For example: Don't be disingenuous, and eventually it will become apparent that you aren't. I never got the impression that you were being disingenuous, or 'looking like an idiot' either, BTW.

A nice PM clearing the air does wonders too.

I make many mistakes, including those having to do with probing my own understanding, so how could I blame anyone?

[StringJunky]

Seth. LOL! Yes, analogously, it's like a triangle rising to an infinitesimally narrow peak... at the top one approaches  total ignorance.  

Edited February 17, 2023 by StringJunky
Changed words

[sethoflagos]

13 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I think it is disconcerting to find that something you thought you knew is wrong, especially when it relates to a subject area that you regard as your citadel of knowledge, i.e. helps to define your self-image. I'm now old enough to tread increasingly carefully, even there, as I'm finding a false memories sometimes catching me out. This is a phenomenon I expect to become more pronounced in the years to come. 

For what it's worth, although there's some considerable overlap in our areas of interest, I've learnt to think very carefully before I post anything that may contradict something you've posted. Hey, none of us are perfect! But if we work together as a team and respect each other's core disciplines we have a chance of getting close to a viable conclusion.

[Peterkin]

19 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

This sounds highly inferential.

As are all reactions.

20 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

How would it work for say a Dutch poster who may not catch English nuances accurately and was culturally conditioned to respond in blunt fashion?

How should I know? It depends on the Dutch poster, their fluency, their degree and manner of bluntness. If you don't fully understand what they mean, it would be wise to ask for clarification before concluding, but sometimes we are unwise and respond emotionally - in any language.  

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

LOL! Yes, analogously, it's like a triangle rising to an infinitesimally small peak... at the top lies total ignorance.  

Academic Nirvana?

[joigus]

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I'm now old enough to tread increasingly carefully, even there, as I'm finding a false memories sometimes catching me out. This is a phenomenon I expect to become more pronounced in the years to come. 

Very similar feeling here. If nothing else, forums like these help me keep working on it and adding consistency to a building that's bound to end up failing. It's like taking a look into a room that you haven't visited for a long time. I hope that something called wisdom emerges finally.

Sometimes I feel that flexibility does the job much better --where I stand now-- than rigidity. Something like collagen for my aging cells?

[MigL]

Very much like Exchemist, even after having been around for over 10 years and gained some respect for my scientific opinion, when dealing with the likes of Markus , Mordred, Joigus, Swansont, and others who are no longer active in the Physics forum, I always ake sure to ask questions, not be confrontational and defer to their expertise.
It is made easier by the fact that they are always willing to help, and are never condescending 

[exchemist]

Just now, joigus said:

Very similar feeling here. If nothing else, forums like these help me keep working on it and adding consistency to a building that's bound to end up failing. It's like taking a look into a room that you haven't visited for a long time. I hope that something called wisdom emerges finally.

Sometimes I feel that flexibility does the job much better --where I stand now-- than rigidity. Something like collagen for my aging cells?

Yes exactly. In fact one reason I hang out in these places in my retirement is to repoint the brickwork and replace loose roof tiles.

[StringJunky]

Concerning bluntness:  I think science academics appreciate concision* in delivery and this can come across as blunt to those who are not trained this way.

*Concision: Writing principle of eliminating redundancy. This may include deliberately excluding social and emotive cues, like delivering in a consciously affable or nice way. It's just to the point.

I like swansont's delivery personally, although it took some time to not feel pissed off with the apparent terseness... it's just conciseness.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by StringJunky

[sethoflagos]

17 minutes ago, joigus said:

I always try to apply simple formulas. One that works for me is: Mean well and everything will take care of itself when a misunderstanding appears.

I'm really quite envious of your expertise in this.

I'm afraid that when I get into a topic that grabs my interest, I go into full focus mode and any considerations of not treading on other people's toes go out of the window. I've known my employer for over a quarter of a century and we get on very well.  He says that when challenged my responses can be what he calls 'a little waspish'. We reconcile this with the fact that I'm a northerner and he's a southerner. It's just a clash of culture. Nothing personal. 

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Some of you familiar with my posting style probably realise that my understanding of psychology is close to zero. Perhaps you can help raise it a notch or two.

I'm sure all of us at some point or other have read a post that exposed our ignorance. @Mordred and @Markus Hanke for example frequently leave me feeling exposed as an idiot without seeming to pause for breath. But I do exit that thread a little less of an idiot.

So why do a number of us seem to automatically assume that such exposure of our ignorance was intentional and malicious?  No names no pack drill. Just curious.

Ignorance is a state we should be trying to correct constantly. Accumulated human knowledge is immense. Why are you making it about you personally? 

You're blaming yourself for not having something, thinking of yourself as an "idiot" for not understanding everything, and I think this is a problem. It makes you think of learning as "correcting your deficit", or "judging your capabilities" instead of "becoming even smarter" or "learning something new". You're a human, you have an amazing capacity to learn, and many tools that give knowledge deeper meaning and application. Nobody is exposing your ignorance when they teach you something, they're exposing your capacity to learn. 

[sethoflagos]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Ignorance is a state we should be trying to correct constantly. Accumulated human knowledge is immense. Why are you making it about you personally? 

You're blaming yourself for not having something, thinking of yourself as an "idiot" for not understanding everything, and I think this is a problem. It makes you think of learning as "correcting your deficit", or "judging your capabilities" instead of "becoming even smarter" or "learning something new". You're a human, you have an amazing capacity to learn, and many tools that give knowledge deeper meaning and application. Nobody is exposing your ignorance when they teach you something, they're exposing your capacity to learn. 

My point exactly. +1

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Concerning bluntness:  I think science academics appreciate concision* in delivery and this can come across as blunt to those who are not trained this way.

*Concision: Writing principle of eliminating redundancy. This may include deliberately excluding social and emotive cues, like delivering in a consciously affable or nice way. It's just to the point.

I like swansont's delivery personally, although it took some time to not feel pissed off with the apparent terseness... it's just conciseness.

 

Yes, it doesn't bother me too much either. I lived in The Hague for a few years and came to appreciate Dutch directness. I also rowed for many years and am used to being coached, and then there is choral singing, in which coaching can also be fairly direct!  

28 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

For what it's worth, although there's some considerable overlap in our areas of interest, I've learnt to think very carefully before I post anything that may contradict something you've posted. Hey, none of us are perfect! But if we work together as a team and respect each other's core disciplines we have a chance of getting close to a viable conclusion.

I find your posts clear, knowledgeable and informative. And indeed, I think we are all here to learn, not just to pontificate. 

[sethoflagos]

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

And indeed, I think we are all here to learn, not just to pontificate. 

I'm actually quite uncomfortable with the 'pontificating' side of this equation unless I really am sure of my ground.

I served my apprenticeship in a West Yorkshire paper mill which was a fairly brutal working environment by anybody's standards. To carve out a career in such circumstances necessitates a good appreciation of the strength of your position and the ability to defend it robustly when required. This isn't something that came naturally to me. Just force of circumstance.

Later in my career, serving typically as lead process engineer, I respected the judgment of the leads of the other engineering disciplines in regard to their own specialist fields as they respected mine. Within my discipline, I had to accept sole responsisibility for the group's performance and therefore instructed my discipline team on how we were to proceed. Not a democracy. Arguably a meritocracy. I did listen to whatever my group had to say but the bottom line was that I had final word. And anyone who couldn't live with that had to live with the inevitable consequences.

I'm conscious that some of that 'dictatorial' past may leak out in some of my postings. I hope not too much. 

[joigus]

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I'm really quite envious of your expertise in this.

I'm afraid that when I get into a topic that grabs my interest, I go into full focus mode and any considerations of not treading on other people's toes go out of the window. I've known my employer for over a quarter of a century and we get on very well.  He says that when challenged my responses can be what he calls 'a little waspish'. We reconcile this with the fact that I'm a northerner and he's a southerner. It's just a clash of culture. Nothing personal. 

Working with youngsters gives you the plasticity of some kind of psychological amoeba.  Your environment --as I see from your last post-- has been completely different.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I like swansont's delivery personally, although it took some time to not feel pissed off with the apparent terseness... it's just conciseness.

 

In my own words:

On 11/20/2022 at 9:12 PM, joigus said:

Yes, I prefer Swansont's answer too. He's as brief as surgically precise.

From:

Edited February 17, 2023 by joigus
minor correction

[Genady]

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

why do a number of us seem to automatically assume that such exposure of our ignorance was intentional and malicious? 

I wonder about the other way around: why do you care? (This is psychology forum, right?)

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Concerning bluntness:  I think science academics appreciate concision* in delivery and this can come across as blunt to those who are not trained this way.

*Concision: Writing principle of eliminating redundancy. This may include deliberately excluding social and emotive cues, like delivering in a consciously affable or nice way. It's just to the point.

I like swansont's delivery personally, although it took some time to not feel pissed off with the apparent terseness... it's just conciseness.

 

This really is an important point. However, consider what happens when you leave academia for the 'real' world.

The majority of my written output for the last 40 years or so has been defence of contractual position or more recently, technical legislation.

The wording is typically 'impersonal' but corresponds to what I understand to be 'passive aggressive' in today's vocabulary. Maybe it's the focus on the difference between 'should' and 'shall'. I don't know. I've been accused of this a couple of times but I don't fully understand what it means.

All I can say is that there is never any conscious malice behind it, it's just the way I write stuff.

17 minutes ago, Genady said:

I wonder about the other way around: why do you care? (This is psychology forum, right?)

I didn't say that I 'cared'. 7 billion people in the world and a few don't like me. So what. I said I was 'just curious'. 

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

7 billion people in the world and a few don't like me.

8

 

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

So what. I said I was 'just curious'. 

OK. I think there are about as many reasons as the number of people who do so.

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

This really is an important point. However, consider what happens when you leave academia for the 'real' world.

The majority of my written output for the last 40 years or so has been defence of contractual position or more recently, technical legislation.

The wording is typically 'impersonal' but corresponds to what I understand to be 'passive aggressive' in today's vocabulary. Maybe it's the focus on the difference between 'should' and 'shall'. I don't know. I've been accused of this a couple of times but I don't fully understand what it means.

All I can say is that there is never any conscious malice behind it, it's just the way I write stuff.

I didn't say that I 'cared'. 7 billion people in the world and a few don't like me. So what. I said I was 'just curious'. 

I suppose one should really be mindful of the familiarity of the listener to a particular style of delivery and adjust accordingly.

33 minutes ago, Genady said:

I wonder about the other way around: why do you care? (This is psychology forum, right?)

Because it is not his intention to instill negativity from his responses, but yet he does, and he wishes to hear other peoples experience about it.

Edited February 17, 2023 by StringJunky
emphasis

[sethoflagos]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I suppose one should really be mindful of the familiarity of the listener to a particular style of delivery and adjust accordingly.

Wise words. But what if you don't understand how the listener may interpret the style? Bear in mind that within a group focussed on the sciences, there is the possibility of interacting with some ASD spectrum affected indivividuals who really have a difficulty in comprehending the POV of others.