posted
Reposted from another thread in case Aris wanted to reply to me. Aris, if you want to reply, let's keep it to a discussion of broad ideas, and not circle back to specifics of the other thread, since that would probably be seen as trying to work around BB's decision. Plus, I don't really care what anyone in that thread specifically said or how mean they were being or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Nobody makes *that* many "misinterpretations" by accident.
Yes they do.
Communication is hard. Clear communication is even harder. Misunderstandings and miscommunication to some degree or another is the norm. There are a few things you can do to try and help communication go more smoothly:
- Try to be as clear and precise as possible. Try not to assume that other people will always understand what you mean or share your background knowledge. Sometimes this is unavoidable: for example, I'm assuming you'll understand all the words I write in this post. But be reasonable and try to minimize these assumptions.
- When you're not sure of something, don't be afraid to ask clarifying questions. It helps if these questions aren't hostile; the person you're talking to wasn't being confusing on purpose. It made sense to them.
- When someone else misunderstands you, don't get mad. Just clarify what you meant so that they understand and can respond to what you were trying to say.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In general, I would agree whole heartedly, but there needs to be an exception if people have shown themselves to assign the worst possible meaning to your words repeatedly and do not accept corrections of miscommunication.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, let's say that I have two models in my mind - "What Would Honest Bob Do?" and "What Would Dishonest Bob Do?".
Honest Bob does his best to not misconstrue your argument, but he sometimes just honestly misunderstands a point you're making.
Dishonest Bob does his best to so misconstrue it, to the best of what he thinks he can get away with. Indeed he constantly seems to explore the limits of how much he can get away with, and backs off a lie only when he can no longer remotely plausibly stick to it. Until that time he'll use it to maximum effect.
If someone's behaviour consistently matches hypothetical Dishonest Bob... it gets hard for me to believe them to be Honest Bob. Because from the outside perspective they seem indistinguishable from Dishonest Bob.
Honest Bob and Dishonest Bob assign vastly different utilities to sincerity, and it shows.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, in your schema is there a middle ground, or does everyone fall into either Honest Bob or Dishonest Bob?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: Out of curiosity, in your schema is there a middle ground, or does everyone fall into either Honest Bob or Dishonest Bob?
You mean Lawful Neutral Bob?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, I agree that past experience can make one assume the worst in a person.
There is a problem, however, that I see rampant especially on the internet, of needing a villain. If I say A but meant B, it is a mistake. Gathering a lynch mob because you think I meant A when I meant B is also a mistake, but it is the lynch mob's mistake, not mine.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Dan, let's say that I have two models in my mind - "What Would Honest Bob Do?" and "What Would Dishonest Bob Do?".
Honest Bob does his best to not misconstrue your argument, but he sometimes just honestly misunderstands a point you're making.
Dishonest Bob does his best to so misconstrue it, to the best of what he thinks he can get away with. Indeed he constantly seems to explore the limits of how much he can get away with, and backs off a lie only when he can no longer remotely plausibly stick to it. Until that time he'll use it to maximum effect.
If someone's behaviour consistently matches hypothetical Dishonest Bob... it gets hard for me to believe them to be Honest Bob. Because from the outside perspective they seem indistinguishable from Dishonest Bob.
Honest Bob and Dishonest Bob assign vastly different utilities to sincerity, and it shows.
This system sounds very rational, but it's not really. Let's scrutinize it.
One problem is that for it to work, you need to be very good at telling the difference between someone honestly misunderstanding and and someone intentionally misconstruing your point.
If you're not good at that, then you'll assume someone is a Dishonest Bob based on your mistaken impression of their actions.
But if you are good at telling the difference, then you don't need the Honest/Dishonest Bob models. You can just act based on your assessment of each individual miscommunication.
So we're back to square one: how you are assessing each individual misinterpretation. If you're assessing them badly, the repercussions will completely destroy the conclusions you draw.
I think the truth of the matter is that we're none of us mind readers. Even when someone else carefully communicates an idea to us with good explanations, we have to recreate that idea in our own minds in order to understand it. Because we have no method of perfect transmission, our understanding of that idea will often differ slightly from that of the person who explained it to us.
And if misinterpretation can occur even when both parties are allies, cooperating and helping each other learn, imagine how easily misinterpretations must occur between adversaries!
That's why a general policy of positive interpretation is really helpful when arguing. When someone says something that sounds wrong or evil or like they misunderstood you... Take a moment. Try to think of the best reasonable interpretation for what they've said, rather than your first impression. And then respond to that. If you can't think of any positive interpretation, then ask a clarifying question before you give any major arguments, to check your impression.
If you respond to a positive interpretation, and that interpretation is right, the conversation flows smoothly. If it's wrong, then at least you're unlikely to get bogged down into bitter arguments over intentionally misconstruing someone to make them seem evil/stupid/etc.
Another good reason to do this is that you're arguing against the best possible argument that you can find in what they said, instead of the worst. That's good, because it makes you think harder about your own position, and come up with better arguments.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe there are D&D alignment jokes in my thread and I haven't participated in them yet.
This is unacceptable.
Stone Wolf, "Good" in the alignment system doesn't necessarily equate to "not a rude jerk" (think of the classic overbearing asshole Paladin stereotype).
So I think Orincoro could easily be Chaotic Good. He just happens to also have the character trait "is sometimes a rude jerk." Seems perfectly fine. Especially if he's mostly just a rude jerk to people he sees as too Lawful or too Evil.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chaotic Good is more likely to be rude than Lawful Evil, for example. It's the ends that are different.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another good reason to do this is that you're arguing against the best possible argument that you can find in what they said, instead of the worst.
Yes, I've heard that called the "Iron Man" (as opposed to the Straw Man), where you try to improve the adversary's argument on their behalf.
quote:That's why a general policy of positive interpretation is really helpful when arguing.
I do have the general policy of positive interpretation. I generally keep patiently explaining whenever other people misinterpret or misrepresenting my words. You can check the first pages of the thread that motivated this one, if you don't believe me. You'll find instance after instance where someone misrepresents an opinion of mine, and without accusing them of anything I explain, "No, I didn't mean *this*, I meant *that*.
quote:If you can't think of any positive interpretation, then ask a clarifying question before you give any major arguments, to check your impression.
But that path is closed to you if whenever you ask a clarifying question you're accused of asking a "dishonest question" and of laying "traps".
At some point a person must realize that they've effectively behaved like the sort of Always-Cooperate Agent that allows the Always-Defect agents to thrive.
Tit-for-Tat is the decision-theoretic optimal solution in the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
