Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterlesscloud | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com