Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

sociosage.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#41

Post by rkon »

forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #32

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 mea…

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

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#42

Post by Splines »

subLimb wrote: post #26
aMoniker wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#43

Post by eli »

LukeShu wrote: post #24
eli wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#44

Post by AznHisoka »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #34
AznHisoka wrote: post #2

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.

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 corre…

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 :)

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#45

Post by dextorious »

jaekwon wrote: post #20
dextorious wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#46

Post by AznHisoka »

kenjackson wrote: post #22
AznHisoka wrote: post #2

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.

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…

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.

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#47

Post by kenjackson »

AznHisoka wrote: post #46
kenjackson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#48

Post by recursive »

eli wrote: post #43
LukeShu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#49

Post by noahc »

Splines wrote: post #42
subLimb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 "suppo…

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.

Re: Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses

#50

Post by earbitscom »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #10

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.

Post reply on HN