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

Privilege is bad grammar

tadaima.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 292 posts

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#171

Post by JumpCrisscross »

8note wrote: post #84
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My best guess is that comfortable clothes are necessary but you also need something high value in addition I’m just a regular. The point is I’m not signaling anything, I’m just not bothering with a signal because I have other things (namely, being recognized) that will e.g. ensure I get a table even if it’s a busy night. If I go to Vegas I may grab a silk shirt because, yes, my service experience absolutely varies…

> I’m just a regular. The point is I’m not signaling anything, I’m just not bothering with a signal because I have other things (namely, being recognized) that will e.g. ensure I get a table even if it’s a busy night. it might not be on purpose, but you are signalling that you have status such that you dont need to play by whatever rules other people do to get said table. to signal like a regular person, you would be…

> it might not be on purpose, but you are signalling that you have status

Not really. I’m relying on another signal, the recognizance of my person in a small town. If a tourist walked in wearing what I’m wearing they wouldn’t get that treatment. The signal is my face. Not the dress. (I could dress up for the evening and the same thing would happen.)

> to signal like a regular person, you would be doing all the same stuff other people do to get the table

Sure. That’s the point. I’m not signaling “like a regular person.” I’m just not sending a signal with dress. I’m dressing ordinarily.

If I were actually trying to camouflage I’d do other things. And that would constitute false signaling. (And sure, with my friends, I am signaling something. But it’s still not a counter signal unless we expand the terms signal and counter signal to mean literally anything, information and noise alike.)

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#172

Post by dwaltrip »

ishouldstayaway wrote: post #155
LoganDark wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is actually that people don't get to decide if others will perceive signals.

This is a distinction without a difference; a signal was received, whether you meant to send it or not.

It’s quite a difference…

The expected or assumed signal can differ radically from the perceived signal, often in surprising ways.

People spend so much energy doing things based on untrue assumptions about what others are thinking.

And this is before we even get into how much one should adjust their behavior based on someone else’s perception.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#173

Post by marcosdumay »

WalterBright wrote: post #131
ktm5j wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to dress down at work because that's how everyone else dressed and I just wanted to fit in. But at some point I stopped doing that because I was caring way too much about what other people were thinking. I dress nice because I like it. It makes me feel good about myself, but has nothing to do with compensating.

People react differently towards me depending on how I dress. It's quite noticeable. The sensible thing to do is take advantage of it.

And the best way to take advantage may be by unmasking the people that are incompetent enough to not assess others competence by looking at their work, and instead just look at their clothes.

But well, it's context sensitive.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#174

Post by pickleRick243 »

freetime2 wrote: post #121
azangru wrote: post #116

> but grammar privilege? That's certainly a first. Here is what I don't understand, and what is not addressed in the post. After you get a response from your boss that reads, "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks", doesn't this free you up to relax your style to your comfort level? If you see that your addressee doesn't seem to care for meticulous style, is there much point in stressing over it (and thus, in co…

Unfortunately there is a double standard at play. When people see a sloppy email from a powerful person, they think “they must be so busy that they don’t have time to check grammar”. But when it comes from a low-level employee they think “oh they must be careless or uneducated”.

except it's sort of true and a reasonable assumption to make? Just as when a master painter makes something that looks "sloppy" to the layman, one immediately assumes there is some deep artistry behind it as opposed to poor technique, whereas when a child does it, one does not extend the same charitable attitude.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#175

Post by novemp »

renewiltord wrote: post #148
novemp wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "privileged BY using bad grammar", it's "privilege TO use bad grammar". But yes, we know, the privilege boogeymen kicked your dog and made you take a CRT class.

[flagged]

In one ear and out the other, huh? Do you think deliberately misunderstanding words makes you clever? Are you sticking it to those got-dang SJWs?

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#176

Post by saghm »

WalterBright wrote: post #133
decimalenough wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. You're conflating actual value with perceived value. It's well established that perceptions matter and people make decisions based on this all the time. > The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life. No, it resonates because it's a feel good story. I'm sure it happens, but most of the time signaling i…

I remember wandering into Cartier's in NYC dressed in my shaggy jeans and t-shirt. They didn't throw me out, but a security guard followed me around, definitely edging into my personal space to make me uncomfortable. I laughed, said I get it, looked a bit more, and left. I remember the days when you were expected to wear a suit on a jet, even the kids. These days, even the first class travelers wear track shorts. I k…

> I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code

What? Why? Are you really that bothered by other people wearing stuff that you wouldn't personally want to wear? I can't even imagine going through life with strong feelings about how other people should dress; it legitimately sounds exhausting.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#177

Post by WalterBright »

marcosdumay wrote: post #173
WalterBright wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People react differently towards me depending on how I dress. It's quite noticeable. The sensible thing to do is take advantage of it.

And the best way to take advantage may be by unmasking the people that are incompetent enough to not assess others competence by looking at their work, and instead just look at their clothes. But well, it's context sensitive.

Yes, I hear that a lot. Might as well push on a rope, though.

In my early career years, a fellow employee came to work in track shorts and flip flops. He was a very, very good programmer. But he never got raises, and never got promoted, and complained to me about it. I suggested it was the way he dressed. He said the same things you wrote.

A couple decades later, I ran into him again at a conference. He ran his own quite successful company. He also was dressed sharply.

Things that make you go hmmm....

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#178

Post by saghm »

nine_k wrote: post #117
stronglikedan wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also: - No signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else because that's been my style since forever and I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.

"No signaling" would be: "I dress like I always do since forever." Any reference to opinions of others would mean that the person cares for them, even in the form of "I don't care", and thus the dress is also a signal to them.

At least for me, the signal I'm sending is "I care more about how comfortable I am in my clothes than I do about what other people are inferring about them". The point isn't that people aren't receiving some sort of signal about me based on that, it's that the signal that they might receive is entirely irrelevant to my motivations. That itself might be a signal, but it's incidental to the actual choice I'm making, which is entirely personal.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#179

Post by ahartman00 »

StevenWaterman wrote: post #4

This is almost textbook countersignalling. The same as: - Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways - No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else - Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here

Using this logic, all of the homeless people are counter signaling then. And there are plenty of executives who wear suits. Also signaling has one l, so thus you are signaling your importance.

Or maybe you just can't assume you know what's going on inside someone else's head.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#180

Post by lotsofpulp »

zephen wrote: post #104
coldtea wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still signalling. People don't get to decide if they're signalling or not. They only get to decide if they'll consciously signal or subconsciously signal. They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.

> They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case. Unless you're Sherlock Holmes, or know the person and their wardrobe intimately, you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. Reddit and quora are littered with stories about car salesmen misreading what they thought were signals, and missing out on big sales. The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly b…

> you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them.

The goal is not to discern anything about a particular person from a one-time viewing of them, the goal is to discern something about a person a sufficiently high percentage of the time. Hence the evolutionary utility of using prior probabilities.

As history, and probably many people’s personal experiences, have shown, this trait also has drawbacks.

Post reply on HN