Comment by Periodic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Periodic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"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'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.

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com