Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses | Hacker News Reader

Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

sociosage.tumblr.com

40 pointscurenote55 comments

I am torn on this issue. I try not to be like this, but words have meaning. And if words don't have meaning or have arbitrary meaning then we can't communicate. Some words have more specific meaning than others.

One thing that drives me absolutely nuts is when people (my girlfriend) use supposedly to not mean anything. My girlfriend uses it when someone else told her something. So she might say, "Supposedly, She went into town today to buy food." and that just means someone told her she went into town.To me this is an empty meaning and "supposedly" implies that maybe she didn't go into town or maybe she went into town to meet her lover and not really to buy food.

Some people believe the dictionary prescribes how words are to be used. Others believe the dictionary merely captures descriptions of how words are already being used. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between.

These aren't so much beliefs of "what dictionaries do", but what they should do. For example, Websters aims to be descriptive, not prescriptive. How much they succeed is debatable. The point is that this issue isn't solely in the mind of the reader.

What would be an example of a prescriptive dictionary? I guess my point is that all these words came from somewhere else, right? The dictionary editor isn't sitting there coining new words for things that previously did not have a name and hoping the stick... right?

L'Académie française has published such dictionaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise

That's probably true but I think this really speaks to the fact that many of us get all technical for lack of certain social skills. Like your comment's parent... The example he gave says a lot. On the one hand if you get what the person means even if they don't use the technically correct term all that really matters is that you both understand the intended meaning. On the other hand I think it's perfectly fine to nitpick at times. Those times would be if someone is very obviously ignorant of what a word means, especially if they use it wrong constantly.

But in the end I think being able to know when to pick those battles is a subtle social skill some people need to learn. It's really hard to explain. It's an interesting topic because it entails all the different ways humans communicate. It's not just words. It's tone, facial expression, volume, gestures, context, and even knowing a person's background or history can give you those subtle clues as to whether this is an ignorant person who needs to be corrected or if it's just an isolated fluke that still allows you to get the intended message and therefore requires no corrections from you.

Me? Well most of the time I think people get what I mean, dictionaries be damned and nitpicking a definition is a petty way to argue sometimes.

As your girlfriend wasn't there to observe that person going into town, the word 'supposedly' makes sense.

Maybe technically, but the word doesn't really add anything to the statement if someone uses it anytime they didn't observe what happened. Supposedly is akin to saying "Assuming what this person said is true, ..." which in many cases implies doubt (why not just say "so and so said she went into town").

I think his point was that it makes literal sense, but it doesn't help the process of communication, which is why he's torn on the issue.

I think his point was that it makes literal sense, but it doesn't help the process of communication

I think it does help - it implies that there is doubt (and possibly some lying involved with what's going on).

Simply stating "so and so said she went into town" is factual (although emphasizing "said" can also imply the same things that using "supposedly" does).

However, if the top-level-commenter's GF is using "supposedly" not in this way, I'd agree that'd be annoying. Maybe she's the mistrustful sort?

As a point of clarification she uses it in this sense:

"Supposedly, Aunt Sue is coming down this weekend"

What she means is "My mom said, "Aunt Sue is coming down this weekend"

What I interpret this to mean is "Aunt Sue says she is coming down this weekend. But, She's so flakey we shouldn't plan anything around her"

The but could really be anything, and it all depends on context, shared knowledge of the situation or person we're talking about.

For me HE IS the technically dumb ass.

Wow!!, writing in his blog that his friend is a dumb ass because he wants to be right all the time!! My passive aggressive sensor just goes off scale. He NEEDS to be right because his internal insecurities so he gets angry with his friend and then ridicules his friend in his blog.

BTW, his friend is totally right, consistency has nothing to do with self discipline(discipline means you have to do constant effort against something), you really do not need that much effort to change something once you integrate it on a routine, he is the one that does not get it, but is in denial, because he does not want to be wrong.

No, they're both wrong, but his friend misses the more important point: self-discipline is necessary to alter the status quo, not consistency.

I believe the more important point was, "Dude, you know what I'm talking about. Getting to a point of consistency requires discipline, so stop trying to correct me for the sake of it."

Being consistent means learning new habits. You might require some self discipline initially, but as time goes along, it becomes a habit and you don't need as much discipline, especially when you start to see tangible progress. So I can see why he would be anal about it.

I can testify to this, I have pretty low self-discipline in the sense that I find it very hard to force myself to do something I don't want to do. When I do manage to build a habit or a routine though, I find it pretty easy to stick to it.

It's not even being anal, if I was telling someone I love tangerines and they tell me that's awesome, oranges are really good for you... I'd be a little baffled I suppose.

I really love how the author complains about the other missing the bigger picture, when there's a bigger picture they themselves are oblivious to: the ideas in your head are really awesome and all, but if you don't learn how to use language properly to communicate them then they're useless to everyone else.

But what you've described is almost the textbook definition of discipline.

"calm controlled behavior: the ability to behave in a controlled and calm way even in a difficult or stressful situation"

The pedant was able to create new habits that allowed him to be controlled and stick to a routine even in the presence of stimuli that would cause him to no longer exibit this control.

The term consistency, when applied to human behavior, is almost always a form of discipline -- except when it comes to certain bodily functions... like heartbeat or going to the bathroom.

I think the distinction is between the need to use willpower and our logical/rational abilities vs. not needing to use it. The Rational Rider vs. The Elephant/Lizard Brain. When we make something a habit, it just naturally becomes a normal behavior.

When we need to use discipline, we need to use self control in order to fight against a natural instinct that's more pleasurable. Of course, there's always a combination of the 2 that's needed, but habits generally rely on learning new behaviors that become natural.

But if you're being pedantic, discipline usually isn't defined with respect to willpower. It's defined with respect to control.

To be clearer -- consistency and discipline aren't exactly the same, but you get consistency in human behavior via discipline.

Technically the original poster was correct. What the pedant did required discipline. The pedant saying that it wasn't discipline was actually not even technically correct. By attempting to be pedantic he actually said something that wasn't even technically true.

Now what you're saying is that there is some other behavior that might be implied by the term discipline, which is a prolonged test of willpower. This technically is not in any definition of discipline I've seen.

I'd argue that if you're going to be a pedant, you at least need to be right.

Self control and willpower goes hand in hand. What else are you using to control yourself? I'm not sure what definition of discipline you are referring to, otherwise. In any case if I'm using your definition, then there's no sense in arguing, the argument wouldn't be interesting anyway.

Your comment is a perfect example of this author was saying. The point of the post had nothing to do with the definition of self discipline or consistency. The point was that his friend was, as you say, being anal about this. There's no reason to be hung up on definitions in that case at all. They were both very obviously meaning the same thing and in contex it made total sense no matter what word you choose as correct. When I say you're a perfect example, I'm not trying to be insulting so please don't be offended. I'm just pointing it out. Can you see it?

Yes, I see the point. You're right, you're 100% right. It's all about ego satisfaction. Your response was even a better example :)

Wow, I didn't even realize it. I guess the lesson is we should all stop commenting as none of seem to be able to cut it out. It's funny how you can be totally well meaning and believe you're above it all yet somehow fall into the same trap you strive to avoid. Like me!

I believe the term he's looking for is pedantic.

pushes glasses up on nose

Also known as 'conversationally anal-retentive'.

When I find myself in a situation like this, I say "we're being pedantic, take a drink".

It works great. It makes us both realize we're acting stupid, and the next day neither of us is going to write a blog post about how our pedantry didn't line up with someone else's.

They both seem like they are thinking the same way to me. Both of them are wrong in some ways (self-discipline != consistency, and consistency alone was unlikely the key to the weight loss).

One common problem I see is that some people tend to turn every conversation into an adversarial situation because they focus on poking holes in whatever the other person says. A more pleasant and fruitful way to talk to people is to try to see things from their perspective -- ask questions instead of saying "no". Finding common ground and learning from other people is far more important than ironing out whatever flaws you see in their logic.

I love that this made it on Hackernews so as to prove the non-techies point! :-D

He is right too - when dealing with the hard sciences it's most important to BE RIGHT (it's either a 0 or 1 - and it matters), but when dealing with relationships it's much more important to BE EMPATHETIC.

If you aren't - you'll be seen as a contrarian/confrontational.

I think we need to practice "being ok with being wrong" when the relationship matters more than the subject matter. Cheers!

As a technical person, am I allowed to complain when non-technical people follow sloppy reasoning to faulty conclusions?

Shouldn't you complain when anybody does it?

He wasn't saying technical as in technologists, and this isn't West Side Story. He meant when you're making a technical correction for the sake of it, being "a technical smart ass". "Non-technical" people do it, too.

So... you got into an argument with your friend because he could have just said "whatever". Or you could have done the same thing.

It's a matter of perspective. Self discipline has a certain connotation and evokes certain emotions. For some people it may be associated with negative feelings built up over years of failure.

Maybe your friend realized this and decided to change the game. Thinking about it in terms of "consistency" instead of the dreaded "self-discipline" evidently worked for him, and he may be sticking to his guns in the argument because he doesn't want to fuck up the mental hack that been working so well.

@AznHisoka hit the nail on the head. It's ironic that the author missed the bigger picture of what his/her friend was trying to say when that was the point of his/her post.

Smart ass posts article about how smart asses drive him nuts...

...irony missed.

My thought exactly -- does the author lack the self-awareness to realize that he is himself a smart ass?

Do you guys lack the reading-comprehension skills to understand that he talks about a SPECIFIC kind of smart-ass called a "pedant" which he is not?

I meant to ask something about your general intelligence, but I redacted it.

You did the internet a favor. Your question would not have been anything remotely intelligent, anyway.

So, his friend is not entitled to believe that consistency and self-discipline are different things?

What's the key to your success?

Consistency!

Ah, you mean self-discipline!

No, I mean consistency - they're different.

PEDANT!

Why is it pedantic to believe that two words are different, but it's not pedantic to ignore your friend's choice of words, and to try to substitute your own words in - and then get so pissed about it that you call your friend a "dumb ass" on the internet?

...irony missed.

Let me try again:

I'm only blogging about my friend because HE is being pedantic!

Again:

After 17 months and countless hours of debate, I believe I've finally crafted the perfect argument to prove to my friend once and for all that HE is the pedantic one!1!

Again:

Doctor, after I've spent months researching it on the internet, I was hoping that you could help me confirm my self-diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive behavior?

Again:

I'm not being annoying - he started it!!!

It's interesting to see how the OP approached the argument: telling his friend straight out that consistency and self discipline are the same thing, rather than saying that self-discipline breeds consistency.

Had he gone with the latter, the argument likely would not have happened. Instead, he misspoke, and then when his friend corrected him (they aren't exactly the same thing, after all), his ego got the better of him and he pushed on into a pissing match rather than clarifying his position. And then be blogged about what a dumb ass his friend is.

There are many lessons on relationships to be learned here, and the OP has pretty much missed all of them.

I don't talk in technical terms with people who won't understand them. I would never get in that kind of semantic debate if I were the friend who had lost weight. I would however most definitely get into a discussion like that if we were both translators, linguists, behavioral scientists or something like that.

Consistency means self-discipline in his case. But many 'consistent behaviors' in living and non-living agents mean something else entirely.

That said, this made me think of one particular type of "technical smartasses" that have pissed me in the past: Lawyers and their legalese.

Oh I get it -- you're trying to show that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to humans. Haha.

* All consistent axiomatic formulations of semantic arguments include self-unaware bigotry.

You are brilliant, sir.

"Technical smart asses often have a narrow view of the world. They only see what’s in front of them."

I find this to be a tremendous leap in logic from the rest of the author's narrative. Some of the most technical, rationally driven people I know are also some of the most open minded, willing to judge new concepts on their own merits rather than deferring to culture or tradition.

Being a stickler for semantics does not mean you're incapable of objectivity, empathy or lateral thinking.

I have a much less flattering term for that kind of person: intelligent idiot. Extremely capable to deconstruct tiny details, utterly incapable of letting the details go. This type of person seems to be attracted by the computer industry for some reason.

Or alternatively, you could just say what you mean instead and avoid the whole discussion in the first place.

But that would mean admitting that you were wrong...

You can watch this type of behavior in abundance on the show Big Bang Theory.

I find the title of the post misleading, technically.

Which one of these things is not like the other one?

Not to disparage anyone but actually see this technical smartass stuff in the comments on HN all the time. Someone makes a good point then someone else nitpicks the most irrelevant detail or pulls out the dictionary definition of the word even though the person's point is clear as day.

I agree with the author on a lot of this and personally feel that this sort of thing is a sign of poor social skills and an inability to see different perspectives or the bigger picture. It can get pretty exhausting.

It's funny that a number of comments on this story exemplify the author's point perfectly. Don't get me wrong though. Please don't take this as me complaining. I'm actually really happy with this community but you've got to admit that what the author is talking about goes on so often around here it's not even funny.

Most of the time focusing on the technical details will get you nowhere but missing the point, totally off track, and arguing something very much unrelated to the original topic. Case in point: see the comments on the post about SpecialForces.com getting hacked. People started missing the point and talking about the user's password strength instead of what was really at issue (the security of the admin's access methods and credentials).

>Most of the time focusing on the technical details will get you nowhere but missing the point, totally off track, and arguing something very much unrelated to the original topic.

That's true some of the time. A lot of the time, though, the technical details are important. Look at the SOPA hearings. The reason they were so cringe-inducing is because all of the technical details were glossed over. You had uninformed Congressmen hand-waving their way past very important questions of implementation and side-effects.

Yeah. I guess you're right. But my point still stands otherwise. I can't really think of another way to word that eight now, it escapes me but you still know what I mean. I stand corrected on that point though.

Well, self discipline isn't really the same as consistency, but his point still stands.

To be fair though, you could completely lack self discipline and be extremely consistent when it comes to watching TV on the couch all day.

This is a nice take by Miguel De Icaza on the subject:

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html

This comment section is a suitable demonstration of the author's point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com