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

241–250 of 292 posts

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#241

Post by Aloisius »

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 reads like textbook mind reading to me.

The author does not actually know why people write with poor spelling/grammar nor truly how others would interpret them writing with with poor spelling/grammar.

They have a guess, but there are any number of alternate reasons why someone might write poorly. They could be technologically illiterate, fat fingered, easily frustrated, mirroring their children, need glasses, careless or any other number of reasons. The only way to find out is to ask.

Engaging in mind reading is fraught with danger. You're more likely to project your own own mood, stereotypes, behavior or beliefs on to others than actually guess what someone's thinking.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#242

Post by WalterBright »

saghm wrote: post #224
WalterBright wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I got married, my spouse and I told people to wear whatever they wanted because we didn't really care. I also never cared at all about what we were wearing on our dates because what I enjoy about spending time with people is not seeing them present themselves in a way that I tell them to. I would go to a restaurant in sweats if I were allowed to. I fundamentally do not understand what reason everyone else should…

It's a free country and you can dress as you please.

But people will judge you by how you dress, and you will miss opportunities as a result, and you'll never know that this is happening.

As I mentioned earlier, people do react to me differently depending on how I dress. And I've known many people who align with your views on this, and they've all wondered why opportunity passed them by (or they realized they needed to change).

Can I ask: suppose you were charged with a crime. Your lawyer showed up in track shorts. Would you get another lawyer? I sure would.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#243

Post by WalterBright »

anonymars wrote: post #239
WalterBright wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll get treated better by the staff if you dress better.

I'm less concerned with the behavior of the staff than the behavior of the other passengers

The staff can be more inclined to help you if you've got a problem.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#244

Post by userbinator »

I've seen messages like that from junior employees up to CEOs. I think it's mainly because most people simply can't type and think quickly enough (150-200wpm) that their thoughts naturally become words with next to no effort.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#245

Post by mythrwy »

cracki wrote: post #158
yieldcrv wrote: post #147

I latch on to some of these trends by lowercasing everything, in this case I mostly just don’t correct it if I missed a case its more like insulation, the people that criticize it seem less connected and less compensated than me while understanding exactly what was conveyed, and the people like me are the same like “look at this try hard middle manager that doesn’t focus on anything relevant” one thing I do conscious…

people are scared of periods? ... lmao!

They have replaced them with exclamation marks! Every sentence must end with an exclamation mark, or you aren't excited and positive enough!

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#246

Post by marcosdumay »

WalterBright wrote: post #177
marcosdumay wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 q…

> He also was dressed sharply.

As I said, it's context sensitive.

Personally, I stopped dressing nicely at work after way too many people assumed I'd throw ethics at the trash and do what they say for the hint of a small promotion. Weirdly, that never stopped the people that actually wanted to do things from talking with me.

But if you are talking to (potential) customers, the calculation is completely different.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#247

Post by zephen »

coldtea wrote: post #138
zephen wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. You'd be surprised. People discern things of value from a one-time viewing of another person constantly. It's evolutionary wiring. From a glance, people can tell whether they others are rich or poor or middle class, their power status within a situation (e.…

> You'd be surprised. People discern things of value from a one-time viewing of another person constantly.

True. I overstated my case a bit. Of course, no matter what they are wearing, it is something that exists in their wardrobe, but that may or may not matter.

> studies show the gaydar exists

This, I know from experience. I had a gay roommate once, and he taught he how to spot them, way back when they were still trying to be a bit unobvious. But, even though gay people usually dress better and in certain ways, that's not the usual tell. It's really not about the clothes.

> doesn't have to be accurate all the time to exist and be usable

This is paradigmatic "system 1" thinking. We all use it, but sometimes the failures are catastrophic.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#248

Post by zharknado »

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

Alternative hypothesis—-efficiency. Executives are very, very busy. As long as you can figure out what they mean, polish doesn’t add much. (Unless it does because it’s an earnings call, board meeting, etc.)

I’m quite convinced in most cases they are not spending time or energy consciously choosing to signal anything about status. They’re just not willing to pay the opportunity cost of keeping their attention on an internal communication any longer than the minimum required. They’re certainly capable of polished communication, but deploy that skill selectively when the return on investment is high.

It’s a classic rookie pitfall to over-index on form instead of content (guilty myself many times). It’s more instructive to pay attention to which questions and ideas powerful people focus on than the forms they use to deliver them (which are not as important, turns out).

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#249

Post by LAC-Tech »

bananaflag wrote: post #146
LAC-Tech wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hardcore anti-prescriptivism among linguists does drive me a bit nuts as well. Languages can and do alter because of peoples prescriptivist ideas. They're not just arbitrary rivers of sound changes that people cannot control. English is still full of Inkwell terms, for example. And in my own lifetime I have seen a lot of linguistic changes basically proscribed that everyone falls into line with (a less controvers…

> Languages can and do alter because of peoples prescriptivist ideas. You are right, but that comes also from a descriptivist perspective. And a linguist would study what sort of prescriptions stick and what sort don't. When linguists say they aren't prescriptivists, they don't say prescriptivism doesn't work, they just say their job is not about deciding whether to say football or soccer.

Right I am probably being sloppy with my terminology. It's more notions that there is no such thing as "good grammar" is just tiresome. We can argue the rules are somewhat arbitrary, but that does not change how people might perceive you.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#250

Post by kstrauser »

Terr_ wrote: post #214
array_key_first wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

I've gotten in the writing habit of BLUF, Bottom Line Up Front:

"Hey boss,

I think we should use this vendor.

[4 paragraphs with charts and formulas explaining why that's the only rational choice]"

The way readers parse this is "the sender thinks we should do this thing, and oh, now that I have that idea implanted in my brain, wow, they sure have a lot of supporting evidence! OK, fine, let's do it."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)

Post reply on HN