![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Niceness and disclaimers
May. 31st, 2011 12:38 pmI've been thinking a lot recently about the difference between saying honestly "no really, I may be incorrect" and saying "but I could be wrong" as a meaningless disclaimer meant to get people to let down their guard to otherwise baseless opinions. And "but I could be mistaken [and really don't feel like taking the time to Google my information because it would cause an awkward pause in conversation]," and "if I remember correctly [please don't judge me if what I'm saying turns out to be incorrect]."
Generally speaking, I view an admission of "I'm not sure" as an admirable allowance by a person who recognizes human fallibility in themselves and doesn't want to cling to supposition, incorrectly remembered or outdated information that is wrong.
But I have seen some people use the word "maybe" to soften the delivery of a patently incorrect or unfalsifiable belief to make it sound more likely. "Maybe the president is secretly a Muslim. Maybe your husband is cheating on you. I don't know I'm just saying! It can't hurt to look into it, right?"
Right, well. It can't hurt, unless the reason you're looking into it isn't your own reason; it's a gentle form of insidious persuasion often used by businesses. "Are you afraid you might have Mesothelioma? Remain calm and give us a call for a half price battery of unnecessary tests!" You can insert doubt and fear in a person (or happiness and comfort) where it simply does not belong using suggestion instead of assertions. In fact, suggestion works better, because it gives the illusion that the listener has the power to say no; while strongly encouraging them to say yes, or else be thought of as wantonly ignorant.
One thin I'm trying to figure out is whether there's a definitive way to tell a clever manipulator from an honest person. For instance, I regularly disclaim statements I really am not sure about, but I'm recounting my best memory of the information. Sometimes I'm just lazy and don't want to consult Google or other reference material; and as long as you're being up front about said sloth, I think that's okay because you are giving the other person the opportunity to look it up. But usually I do that by saying something like "I'm not sure because I can't remember the information clearly/I read it on the Internet somewhere and this idea is not based on a reliable information source." Which I think is pretty clear and can't be misinterpreted as manipulative or accidentally get someone's intellectual defenses down. Unless I have information at-the-ready, I want people to fact-check information I spout, especially if I say I'm not sure about it for one reason or another. I mean, if you find out I'm incorrect I would much appreciate it if you didn't go "well actually," on me and accuse me of intentionally spreading misinformation or parade my wrong-ness in front of me to contrast your right-ness, or call me passive or lazy for not Googling it first or say I'm part of the misinformation problem (all of these over-the-top reactions to wrong-ness seem to happen a lot in otherwise civil discussions on The Internets). BUT I certainly don't mind when someone gives be new information and asks "have you seen this? I think this information is better than the information you have." I don't mind new things, in fact I like new things, even if they show that I was wrong about something.
But...the other part of wording something in a neutral, carefully constructed tone like "I'm not sure about this because I read it on The Internet, but it's my best guess" admittedly has the second purpose of not instigating conflict. Is that manipulative? Maybe a little, but on the other hand, I don't find intellectual pissing contests engaging or useful because everyone puts their debate hats on, sticks to their guns, selectively finds articles that support their opinions and whoever is the cleverest speaker wins. No information can be exchanged in an accusatory tone. Which is why, although I agree with the "Religious Bigoty Is Shameful" billboards that have been popping up everywhere, I question how useful they are beyond rallying the troops, as it were. No one who thinks God hates gays and lesbians is going to be swayed by someone calling them shameful. Well, maybe not no one, but very few people. When was the last time someone changed your mind by shaming you? [ETA: I think it takes an entire culture vs one individual to shape someone with shame. But if a single individual challenges you by calling you a whore in an environment where you are otherwise assured of your opinion, you're probably just going to think that person is a jerk. Strongly held personal outlooks that are backed up by a culture somewhere (such as religions) are incredibly difficult to wrest from someone through shaming if they have their own culture ready and willing to back them up on their opinions. If you are alone in your opinion--or you think you are--I think it's easier for shaming to work. But if you have even one person who openly shares your viewpoint to lean on when you're attacked, I think shame's effectiveness starts to fall flat pretty quickly. Upon rethinking this, I think family also has a lot of power to shame individual to individual. But again, a parent represents an authority, just like a prevailing culture does, so it's more difficult to disagree with a parent or older sibling because you have to fight authority (and your love for the person) to do so.]
I just feel like there's this little dance we have to do in order to show sincere humility without failing to challenge a dissenting person OR accusing them unnecessarily. We should challenge each other without insulting each other in the same breath, but we should not manipulate each other to get the answer we want, either.
Bravado, shame and manipulation are for war. Though you might not think so to listen to how we all speak to each other sometimes, when we are trying to share information and correct the record, we're not at war. But language is a nuanced thing, and frankly most people aren't very good at it. They think they're being blunt and straightforward when actually, they're being rude, and they think they're being open-minded and cool when actually, they're being very manipulative. It seems like a lot of that is unconscious (conjecture to be sure), but I think it's important for me to consider the idea that we as a species are apparently much more specific about interpreting language than we are about delivering it.
Generally speaking, I view an admission of "I'm not sure" as an admirable allowance by a person who recognizes human fallibility in themselves and doesn't want to cling to supposition, incorrectly remembered or outdated information that is wrong.
But I have seen some people use the word "maybe" to soften the delivery of a patently incorrect or unfalsifiable belief to make it sound more likely. "Maybe the president is secretly a Muslim. Maybe your husband is cheating on you. I don't know I'm just saying! It can't hurt to look into it, right?"
Right, well. It can't hurt, unless the reason you're looking into it isn't your own reason; it's a gentle form of insidious persuasion often used by businesses. "Are you afraid you might have Mesothelioma? Remain calm and give us a call for a half price battery of unnecessary tests!" You can insert doubt and fear in a person (or happiness and comfort) where it simply does not belong using suggestion instead of assertions. In fact, suggestion works better, because it gives the illusion that the listener has the power to say no; while strongly encouraging them to say yes, or else be thought of as wantonly ignorant.
One thin I'm trying to figure out is whether there's a definitive way to tell a clever manipulator from an honest person. For instance, I regularly disclaim statements I really am not sure about, but I'm recounting my best memory of the information. Sometimes I'm just lazy and don't want to consult Google or other reference material; and as long as you're being up front about said sloth, I think that's okay because you are giving the other person the opportunity to look it up. But usually I do that by saying something like "I'm not sure because I can't remember the information clearly/I read it on the Internet somewhere and this idea is not based on a reliable information source." Which I think is pretty clear and can't be misinterpreted as manipulative or accidentally get someone's intellectual defenses down. Unless I have information at-the-ready, I want people to fact-check information I spout, especially if I say I'm not sure about it for one reason or another. I mean, if you find out I'm incorrect I would much appreciate it if you didn't go "well actually," on me and accuse me of intentionally spreading misinformation or parade my wrong-ness in front of me to contrast your right-ness, or call me passive or lazy for not Googling it first or say I'm part of the misinformation problem (all of these over-the-top reactions to wrong-ness seem to happen a lot in otherwise civil discussions on The Internets). BUT I certainly don't mind when someone gives be new information and asks "have you seen this? I think this information is better than the information you have." I don't mind new things, in fact I like new things, even if they show that I was wrong about something.
But...the other part of wording something in a neutral, carefully constructed tone like "I'm not sure about this because I read it on The Internet, but it's my best guess" admittedly has the second purpose of not instigating conflict. Is that manipulative? Maybe a little, but on the other hand, I don't find intellectual pissing contests engaging or useful because everyone puts their debate hats on, sticks to their guns, selectively finds articles that support their opinions and whoever is the cleverest speaker wins. No information can be exchanged in an accusatory tone. Which is why, although I agree with the "Religious Bigoty Is Shameful" billboards that have been popping up everywhere, I question how useful they are beyond rallying the troops, as it were. No one who thinks God hates gays and lesbians is going to be swayed by someone calling them shameful. Well, maybe not no one, but very few people. When was the last time someone changed your mind by shaming you? [ETA: I think it takes an entire culture vs one individual to shape someone with shame. But if a single individual challenges you by calling you a whore in an environment where you are otherwise assured of your opinion, you're probably just going to think that person is a jerk. Strongly held personal outlooks that are backed up by a culture somewhere (such as religions) are incredibly difficult to wrest from someone through shaming if they have their own culture ready and willing to back them up on their opinions. If you are alone in your opinion--or you think you are--I think it's easier for shaming to work. But if you have even one person who openly shares your viewpoint to lean on when you're attacked, I think shame's effectiveness starts to fall flat pretty quickly. Upon rethinking this, I think family also has a lot of power to shame individual to individual. But again, a parent represents an authority, just like a prevailing culture does, so it's more difficult to disagree with a parent or older sibling because you have to fight authority (and your love for the person) to do so.]
I just feel like there's this little dance we have to do in order to show sincere humility without failing to challenge a dissenting person OR accusing them unnecessarily. We should challenge each other without insulting each other in the same breath, but we should not manipulate each other to get the answer we want, either.
Bravado, shame and manipulation are for war. Though you might not think so to listen to how we all speak to each other sometimes, when we are trying to share information and correct the record, we're not at war. But language is a nuanced thing, and frankly most people aren't very good at it. They think they're being blunt and straightforward when actually, they're being rude, and they think they're being open-minded and cool when actually, they're being very manipulative. It seems like a lot of that is unconscious (conjecture to be sure), but I think it's important for me to consider the idea that we as a species are apparently much more specific about interpreting language than we are about delivering it.
