I don’t think they’re at all mutually-exclusive
Yes, I can be a real dick. But comments by others suggest that I’m a dick at times when I’m wholly unaware of it. Upon much reflection, here are the most likely contributing effects:
When I’m a dick by completely and callously trampling everything you believe and hold dear: That’s largely the False Consensus Effect. When I just charge through, assuming that the reader agrees that Fox News is unbalanced and unfair, religion in society can do great harm, Bush Ⅱ was a terrible president, evolution is a fact to the exact degree that gravitation is a fact, etc., and don’t substantiate my claims, this is frequently what’s at work. In doing this, I am being inappropriately and inconsiderately inclusive.
When I’m a dick by apparently showing off or talking over your head: That’s the Dunning-Kruger Effect. There’s no humility in claiming that effect, because there is no reason to pretend to be humble: I do have a greater understanding of science, technology, logic, and mathematics than most other people, and I let them color my worldview more than does almost anyone [insert clever response about Dunning-Kruger and believing myself to have great understanding.] It’s been pointed out to me that I throw around terms like “order of magnitude”, “factor”, “signal-to-noise ratio”, “imprecise”, “given”, “established”, and so many others; I mention things by initialisms; I reference things in passing that will require a Google search to unravel. Most of the time, I’m honestly not trying to be a dick. In doing this, I am being — ready? — inappropriately and inconsiderately inclusive. The worst part about this one is that when I try explain more carefully, I frequently explain entirely the wrong things, which makes me seem both a dick and patronizing.
When I’m just being a dick: That’s the Just Being a Dick Effect. In doing this, I am inappropriately and inconsiderately just being a dick. An example would be, for instance, when I try to ret-con my dickishness by pretending it to be inclusive.
It is left as an exercise for the reader to bin the instances appropriately.
On preview: “bin” as a verb; “mutually-exclusive”; “exercise for the reader”. Sorry.
[ Replace this ad for $1/month ]
|
2 Responses to “I don’t think they’re at all mutually-exclusive”
Leave a Reply, but read first
- Feel free to leave replies even to very old posts.
- Is your comment not specifically about this post? Great! Go here.
- Flame, swear, rant, shout — just don't spam! You won't increase your PageRank, even temporarily (the URLs are tagged 'nofollow'), and I'll delete it anyway. Save us both time.
Subscribe by email
December 14th, 2009 at 15h00
“order of magnitude”, “factor”, “signal-to-noise ratio”, “imprecise”, “given”, “established”
Really? I don’t expect your son to know all of those words/phrases yet. But adults I do.
wait…does that make me a dick too?
December 14th, 2009 at 15h27
But adults I do.
Yeah, me too, which is why I’m comfortable using them. But I guess incorrectly a lot of the time.
The constructions for the latter, of course, are things like “Is that a given?” and “Has that been established?”, which get baffled looks of what I’ve taken as incomprehension. Maybe it’s “surprise”, and it’s dickish to ask questions like that in conversation? I don’t really see the point in talking if stuff like that isn’t permitted, though. What’s the chance of my learning something? Otherwise, don’t conversations reduce to waving at someone? Why bother with the words?