Hacker News Reader

Comment by madair | Hacker News Reader

Great article! I love this:

"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!

View on HN

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.

He told me that other people hear it as "I didn't listen to what you said, but am talking anyway."

Don't worry, even if you don't say "yeah, but", I still think that.

But why would you assume that?

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.

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".

> The definition of Linux is an established fact so if you know what it is there is no need for "I think".

So, you agree Linux is just a kernel and the whole operating system should be called GNU/Linux, right?

To place a disclaimer 'this is not fact' before everything you say, is a bit tedious.

And superfluous.

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.'

And nothing ever gets done.

Yes, it does.

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.

At least, I think that's possible.

"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.

But isn't that an indication that most people are in fact very literal?

Isn't it far more indicative of layers of meaning when someone distinguishes between fact and opinion without literal markers?

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.

It's not logical to believe the given nerd's opinion is universal. Why would anyone, however nerdy, think so?

When someone tells me my voice was too soft I immediately recognize it as a perception of that person and assign it a value based on that.

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"

It's probably because it is possible to pass on a statement of fact by speaking it too.

To me personally not putting I think before my statements of opinion, as opposed to fact, seems weird.

I think Firefly is the best Sci Fi show ever

and

Firefly is the best Sci Fi show ever

Are 2 completely different statements :)

I find the second statement to be nonsensical because it is written like a fact, but can't be proven or disproven. Why do people speak like this?

The word "ever" works like "I think" in that sentence. That's why the "I think" version sounds weird.

it's rather that many nerds easily assume an authoritative tone when voicing their opinion.

i think

That is true.

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.

Yes. I'm just saying why people do that. Some people don't irrationally hate disagreement and instead see it as a learning opportunity.

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.

I think the coding theorists here feel that it's an inefficient encoding if the most common case requires more syllables than an uncommon case ;-)

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.

As the romans said: The true is in the middle.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com