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

211–220 of 292 posts

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#211

Post by MichaelDickens »

w10-1 wrote: post #181

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 w…

It's both. Saving time is a form of status signaling. Professionalism usually entails spending longer on something than is optimal for effective communication, which is a way of signaling "my time is less valuable than yours". Writing short messages with grammatical errors is a way of signaling "my time is more valuable than your comprehension".

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#212

Post by teshigahara »

asveikau wrote: post #142

Many people point to the bad spelling and grammar of these powerful, abusive people and they say wow, that's a flex. My own reaction is more like these people are stupid . It's not power that makes them write poorly. They're not capable of getting it right. Look at what Noam Chomsky wrote to Epstein as a contrast. Multiple paragraphs and usually coherent. He makes Epstein look dumb. (Which he was.) I don't support wh…

Exactly. Remember this is a guy who was "best friends" with Donald Trump. It's just a group of idiots who became rich and powerful through a combination of luck and criminality.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#213

Post by crazygringo »

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.

No... you have to actually be important to countersignal with your clothing.

And yes, those plenty of executives are precisely in the "no signaling" category.

Mere executives don't get to countersignal with their clothing in such a visible way. Majority owners do.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#214

Post by Terr_ »

array_key_first wrote: post #163
bonoboTP wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. But to expand on the spelling topic, good spelling and grammar is now free with AI tools. It no longer signals being educated. Informal…

Informal or conversational tone has always been the gold-standard for most communications. People just piss on it because they like to feel smart. But, most writing has purpose. And usually fulfilling that purpose requires readers to comprehend what you're writing. Conversational tone is easy to comprehend, and shockingly less ambiguous than you'd think, especially when tailored to the target audience.

> But, most writing has purpose.

Over the years, I've become an odd fan of documents that start with a "purpose of this document" section.

Sure, it seems weirdly bureaucratic at first, but as time goes on, you start seeing documents that don't really know what their focus is anymore, because different authors decided it was the least-bad place to dump their own guide, checklist, or opinions.

L for example, imagine four documents about an API: A how-to guide; fine implementation details; a diagnostic checklist; a primer for executives or salespeople considering it as a product.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#215

Post by LeonB »

arduanika wrote: post #143
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.

The boss was following Strunk & White's advice to omit needless letters.

You must be referring to the abridged Strnk n Wyt

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#216

Post by Terr_ »

robocat wrote: post #80
bonoboTP wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. But to expand on the spelling topic, good spelling and grammar is now free with AI tools. It no longer signals being educated. Informal…

> Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human Except that this signal is now being abused. People add into the prompts requesting a few typos. And requesting an informal style. There was a guy complaining about AI generated comments on substack, where the guy had noticed the pattern of spelling mistakes in the AI responses. It is common enough now. But yes, typos do match the wr…

Yeah, I'd argue a large portion of what LLMs are being used for can be characterized as "counterfeiting" traditionally-useful signals. Signals that told us there was another human on the other side of the conversation, that they were attentive, invested, smart, empathizing, etc.

Counterfeiting was possible before, but it had a higher bar because you had to hire a ghostwriter.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#217

Post by bonoboTP »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #127
bonoboTP wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call it whatever you want but people make inferences. Also there is no bright line between intentional and unintentional signaling. The brain is capable of hiding plenty of stuff from its own other parts. See the book "The elephant in the brain".

> You can call it whatever you want but people make inferences This is an incorrect definition of a signal. I agree that intention is irrelevant. But a powerful person blending in with their dress isn’t actually sending a signal. There is nothing to perceive because they look like everyone else. The signal is only in if they’re recognized. Your definition of signal is congruous with any trait someone thinks a powerfu…

If you dress down in a context where formal attire is expected, it's a signal. What it signals depends on what happens. If you're shunned and avoided, then you're just a loser or a hobo. If you're clearly valued, listened to with interest etc, despite that mismatch, it is a countersignal. You could only afford to do this by having high status and importance in the community that outweighs such expectations. It doesn't matter if you simply don't care and never think about how you dress and this just comes naturally. The signal is still picked. The person to whom general expectations and rules don't quite apply the same way as to the average person is the one of higher status.

In other words, it's not enough to flaunt the rules, you also have to get away with it for it to count.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#219

Post by Terr_ »

bonoboTP wrote: post #35
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not having to care is often part of the countersignaling. An honest signal doesn't always take effort. In fact it's the tryhard imitators that have to expend effort emulating this. The real deal is effortless and comes naturally. The silverback gorilla can come across as scary and formidable even when its just lazing around not trying to look intimidating. It's just big, without spending thought cycles on having to a…

> An honest signal doesn't always take effort.

I would guess that the non-effort signals instead involve risk tolerance.

It's a statement that they could easily withstand the consequences of an adverse judgement in ways regular people can't.

If I get turned away from Le Foie Heureux for failing to meet the restaurant dress-code, there's not much I can do. If the sommelier thinks that a billionaire looks like a vagrant, well, the billionaire will make a phone call...

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#220

Post by freetime2 »

pickleRick243 wrote: post #174
freetime2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure I think there's some truth the that. You've gotta learn the rules first to know when it's ok break the rules. Somebody with a lot of experience should be able to judge how their message will be received, and what amount of effort is "good enough". Whereas someone with less workspace experience may lack such judgement, and is probably better off erring on the side of "too good" rather than "not good enough".

But it's definitely also very much tied to status, power, and privilege. The same people who have no qualms about firing off a sloppy email to their subordinates often spend a lot more effort on emails to their bosses. But even this discrepancy is justified, I think, given that a manager represents their subordinates to the higher ups. And the potential consequences of a bad impression or misunderstanding are more severe when communicating up the chain of command.

Post reply on HN