Hacker News Reader

I'm reminded of this dilbert cartoon:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230228154639im_/https://assets...

and I'm reminded of this xkcd about the pattern of lights:

I've often thought how my cat must think I am insane. I sit in from of a medium-sized glowing rectangle, I occasionally look at a small glowing rectangle, then in the evening stare at a really large glowing rectangle.

Other options are :

1) Cats do not really think that much about us at all, except for thoughts like - "oh no! it's about to attack! wait no, it's fine, relax..." or "will it feed me if I shout at it?" or "it's sitting down, perhaps I feel like sitting on it"

2) Their thoughts about us revolve around our weird lack of fur, the strange way we never clean ourselves by licking, and how bad we are at catching small animals to eat.

>our weird lack of fur, the strange way we never clean ourselves by licking, and how bad we are at catching small animals to eat.

Or some of us with our tail on backwards.

I’ve thought the same about our dogs when we stare for hours at “the light box.”

I wonder if it’s anything like what I feel when I watch them sniff the same bush for a seemingly endless amount of time like it’s the most interesting thing in the world.

> Hell, most “dumb” people understand, recognize, and appreciate this ability.

That remark reminds me of all the praise heaped by commenters onto videos that explain complex topics glibly. Like "I've been struggling to understand this for 20 years, until this video", etc.

Except, when, which is often the case in mathematics, there is actual way to reduce the complexity of a topic to be understandable to most people without sacrificing veracity for digestible half truths.

I’m reminded of Feynman’s answer on explaining magnetism.

In other words, ICP were not so far off base when they asked “magnets, how do they work?”

The correct option is to treat such conversations as a protocol with a negotiation at the onset.

SYN ACK

SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN SYN

RST FIN

> With all that said, I prefer to first explain my job in an “explain like I’m 5” style and, if the other party indicates interest, add detail and jargon

It is just your choice. I'd prefer a short answer full of jargon. It gives people the opportunity to clarify what they want to ask. Do they really want to know details? Or they want a rough idea of an answer? Or they just filling silence with small talk?

Though other times, when I really want to talk about it, I'd go with some ELI5 explanation, while watching people, are they interested or not?

> Honestly, I think not appreciating simple explanations indicates both low mathematical/logical and social/emotional intelligence.

It can be. But mostly it is not. People are sending signals by choosing one form of the answer or another, you just need to decode their signals. And it will be better, if you don't jump to conclusions about their persistent psychological traits, based on the first impression.

I think the negotiation signal being sent by "all jargon" is "fuck off". It's not an attempt to gauge what level the other person is using. It's a blank wall, being thrust towards them.

It seems like dumbing it down or immediate heavy jargon with people you don't know are just both equally bad options.

What's wrong with asking their level of experience with the topic?

Sure, with parents you know the level. I'm talking "other strangers" you meet outside of a context where some familiarity would be expected (like at a conference one might assume at least some form of knowledge and ability to just have the other person ask about specific jargon they don't know).

But at the parents dinner party, that other guy may or may not be in your line of work. Just ask them.

> What's wrong with asking their level of experience with the topic?

Nothing. That's precisely the point. Giving a wall of jargon, isn't asking if someone is familiar.

Maybe it's just me but I feel entirely comfortable asking questions like "how much math did you take? do you remember what a derivative is?" and base my explanations on the response. Turns out fine every time so far... and if they don't remember what a derivative is (or whatever) then I just explain it differently no big deal. I'd almost argue it is easier than not asking, but only if I actually care about them understanding the answer.

That is fine. That's not what has been complained about here. That's invitational, not wall of jargon.

right, was agreeing with you.

meta: I hate how hn culture lately makes people assume that what was obviously a statement in support of a premise was somehow an argument. I get it, around here it is rational enough. Still weird.

Not exactly a bad thing in my books.

Maybe so, if that is your choice, but it is not giving "people the opportunity to clarify what they want to ask".

> When I meet people who immediately use hyper-specific jargon with strangers,

That is 90% of the professors I asked questions to. If they go full jargon and don't want to explain any of it, they don't want you near them ( or they want you to improve before even having a conversation ).

That just makes them awful professors. They should stick to WWFD (what would Feynman do!)

> what would Feynman do!

The counter-camp is "What would Landau and Lifshitz do?" :-)

---

For those who are out of the loop:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_Theoretical_Physics

"The presentation of material is advanced and typically considered suitable for graduate-level study."

Your default position is distrust and anxiety though. Most people aren't wired that way.

> or assume they’re not emotionally intelligent (because it’s a choice demonstrates little respect for the person they’re addressing)

Intelligence, in the traditional sense, also involves understanding when to give up. Part of "emotional intelligence" is judging whether the other party actually cares about what you're about to say.

>extremely uneducated, under-stimulated people, who also have unaddressed insecurities around their own intelligence. But that’s not most humans.

This isn't going to be most humans you encounter if you're in the HN demographic, but that's a bubble. It does describe most people in the world.

This is, in a word, nonsense.

> When I meet people who immediately use hyper-specific jargon with strangers, I either distrust them, or assume they’re not emotionally intelligent (because it’s a choice demonstrates little respect for the person they’re addressing).

For me, it's quite the opposite: such a choice demonstrates that they their prior is that I'm sufficiently smart and knowledgable to be likely able to understand this explanation - which I rather consider to be a praise. :-)

I think "with strangers" is the important bit. If a nuclear engineer is talking to some lay person and uses hyper specific jargon, then grandparent is correct. If you've established a shared competency with the person, and are therefor no longer total strangers, that's totally different.

True, but however, there are times when I just really need to talk about the extremely detailed bits of some problem I'm thinking about - just the act of speech is really needed; I find this super annoying in other people, but forgivable because I also experience it. I have heard so much about minutiae from my kids that I have to force myself to just semi-actively listen to. My wife has to hear so many things that annoy her as well, when I don't get enough chattering out to co-workers or colleagues.

"Everybody needs a rubber duck."

Sometimes, explaining your issue to a random person leads you to a solution. They don't even need to have any experience with the same or a similar issue; indeed, sometimes it's better if they don't! Often turns out you don't need someone who can respond, so explaining to an object like a rubber duck will do.