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

181–190 of 292 posts

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#181

Post by w10-1 »

It's not intelligence, respect, signaling or status.

It's saving time, the thing we can't bank or stretch or keep. Doing that reflects value priorities that are likely to lead to success and happiness.

We would all be this brief if we weren't constrained otherwise. People who care deeply about their time are this brief even if they shouldn't be. You can even say nothing in ways that influence others in the ways you want (from spiritual teachers and parents to politicians and mafia dons).

(Wealth and power trashing is all too easy these days. Pick a hard target?)

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#182

Post by nilkn »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26
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

> I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here I live in a wealthy town. It’s less sinister than explicit counter signaling. More that I’ll wear comfortable clothes until they wear out because I have better things to do with my time than shop, and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need.

"Signaling" is just the information that your visible choices send to those around you, including strangers. That's why it's called "signaling" -- your choices are broadcasting an information signal about you to others.

To not signal, you must make choices that carry little or no information in the context in which they exist. If you make choices in a context in which they are abnormal (e.g., dressing very casually in a context that others can't access in similar clothing), they inherently broadcast unique information about you. In some cases, that information can create a complex side effect in how people perceive you, even if you don't intend it (e.g., "this person put in the absolute bare minimum effort, because they knew we'd have to be nice to them no matter what, which feels disrespectful to me; their lack of optional effort for others signals that they only care about themselves, not us").

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#184

Post by simon666 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #172
ishouldstayaway wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah similarly we can make a few distinctions here: 1) Intended signal, true 2) Unintended signal, but true 3) Unintended signal, but false (Sure, 1' intended but false; though not really important here)

When (1) obtains we can describe this situation as one where sender and received coordinate on a message.

When (2) obtains we can say the sender acted in a way that indicative of some fact or other and the received is recognizes this; (2) can obtain when one obtains as a separate signal or when the sender hasn't intended to send a signal.

(3) obtains when the receiver attributes to the sender some expressive behavior or information that is inaccurate, say, because an interpretive schema has characterized the sender and the coding system incorrectly producing an interpretation that is false.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#185

Post by exegete »

cracki wrote: post #149
LambdaComplex wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the example from the article: "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks" I'm not buying your argument. The amount of additional time that it would have taken to write that same message with proper grammar and spelling is minuscule.

typed on a phone, so unlikely to have been at the office.

You have to deliberately turn off autocorrection on most phones

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#186

Post by monster_truck »

ahartman00 wrote: post #179
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.

That's uh, not how this works. That's not how any of this works

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#187

Post by WalterBright »

saghm wrote: post #176
WalterBright wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you go to a wedding dressed like a slob? Would you go to an elegant restaurant in sweats? If you go to pick up your date, and she opens the door wearing track shorts and a worn t-shirt, how would you feel?

When I'd pick up my date, and she had obviously spent a lot of time on her appearance, it'd make me feel like a million bucks.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#188

Post by bpavuk »

ahartman00 wrote: post #179
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.

there is a good saying in Slavic culture bubble - "to stretch an owl onto globe" (натянуть сову на глобус) - which means "to overly extrapolate".

congratulations, so far it's the biggest globe I saw a poor owl stretched onto :)

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#189

Post by basilikum »

nine_k wrote: post #112
coldtea wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default? Yes, people, in general, do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_gjWlW0kRs

I'd say, not "people in general" but people form other socioeconomic strata. This guy is not talking like us, suspicious. He talks in an elaborate and thought-through manner, not simply, so, he's not candid, double suspicious!

I'm personally suspicious of anyone using the word candid.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#190

Post by sillywabbit »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #132
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

It's not counter signalling. It's just the complete death of high culture. Hoodies aren't some statement about how you're too cool to care, it's just that no one cares to look good.

Hoodies are very comfortable.
Post reply on HN