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

The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

suggger.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 154 posts

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#71

Post by buildbot »

Telemakhos wrote: post #55
Glyptodon wrote: post #30

English does construct things this way, maybe just not with the frequency of Chinese. In fact, "not bad" is a common expression. That said, it's true that certain flavors of US English, like marketing speak, will avoid many phrases in this family. This is because many American English speakers will see expressions like this, particularly when not used in a directly complementary way, as either bureaucratic and avoida…

Kids in the Pacific Northwest use litotes constantly, to the point of annoyance, and possibly more often than they use the straightforward positive. Everything is "not bad" or "not great" or, if really bad, "super not great." I've always taken it to be a kind of avoidance of confessing one's real feelings.

Yeah this tracks - if someone says something is “not great” it’s probably extremely bad haha. or “super cool no problems here” (there’s tear gas streaming through the windows)

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#72

Post by paleotrope »

crote wrote: post #10
skybrian wrote: post #2

Maybe there's a difference in frequency of usage, but we also say things like "he's not wrong" pretty often in English.

I reckon a decept part of that is due to American English vs. British English. A great example of this is the Korean War, where a British brigadier in an extremely difficult situation told an American general "Things are a bit sticky, sir" - who interpreted it as "Could be better, but we're holding the line". The misunderstanding resulted in 500 dead and captured.

Is that really the same thing? We aren't just talking about understatement.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#73

Post by idiotsecant »

popalchemist wrote: post #45
mathewsanders wrote: post #27

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

Western culture is predicated on a sort of positivist metaphysics, and our language reflects that. Whereas in the east, the langauges and cultures have both long ago (as in, thousands of years ago) assimilated the precepts of non-dualism, which brings with it a greater degree of subtlety, through its embedded understanding of equanimity, dependent arising, and so on. It's a different ontological root, and therefore a…

The idea that all non-western practices, language included, have a deep and amazing and metaphysical quality that westerners simply couldn't understand is so tiresome. No language is more expressive than another, some are more expressive for particular very specific things, like Inuit languages might be much better at describing the varieties of snow, but no language has a monopoly on describing dualism of ideas. It's just as silly to be overly dismissive of the language you're familiar with as it is to be overly dismissive of others.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#74

Post by FloorEgg »

layer8 wrote: post #65
FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

I think you mean https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diswant , or “reject”.

Sure, but I have never heard anyone use this either. This is not common in discourse.

I also find the wiki description and your comment somewhat ambiguous. Even in this case it's hard to descern between absence of want or a negative want.

Edit: due to either my own personal misunderstanding or maybe cultural niche, "reject" is also ambiguous because it could mean an absence of want and not necessarily a negative want. However I just learned that in semiotics "reject" does mean distinctly a negative.

So yep, "diswant" is exactly what I've seen lacking.

Now the question is why don't people use it more?

I'll try.

Thanks for sharing.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#75

Post by shunia_huang »

FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

This is somehow real as I'm not so good at English but as a native Chinese speaker it feels a little bit hard to find the word/phrasing to express what I want to, but I guess your target audience should be more clear on what you are trying to express since it's the native thought process that the audience be familier with.

To me personally, the same meaning requires a lot of extra work to be expressed in English rather than in Chinese.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#76

Post by FloorEgg »

gsf_emergency_6 wrote: post #69
FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

"unalive" is an empathetic mood. Unwant could be too familiar, conjuring "unwanted".

> "unalive" is an empathetic mood.

Sure, I guess that's something people say. Though it's very new English.

In case I wasn't clear. By empathy I mean the ability to accurately predict how someone else will feel about something. For me to do this, I have to set aside my own values and beliefs, to know the other person's values and beliefs, and then use theirs to simulate how they may feel about something.

The point is I can't empathize with another person accurately unless I know their values and beliefs.

So to be empathetic is to be curious about other people's values and then accurately predict how they will feel about something.

So to me '"unalive" is an empathetic mood.' sounds something like "I am in an unalive mood (feeling apathetic and defeated), and people who can relate to my values beliefs and experiences will emapthize with me"

> Unwant could be too familiar, conjuring "unwanted".

This is a really interesting point on multiple levels. I've been so hung up on the ambiguity in the language I never even noticed the connection to "unwanted".

Given you brought this up and I assume immediately saw the parallel, when you think of "unwanted" do you think of an absence of being wanted (apathy, ignored, indefference), or a feeling of being repulsed (negative want, hate, disgust, fear, loathing, etc)?

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#77

Post by shunia_huang »

mathewsanders wrote: post #27

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

> I've not been able to communicate what I mean

As a native Chinese speaker that's always my confusion when communicate in English as I would feel that the word/phrasing can not express the meaning in my heart.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#78

Post by FloorEgg »

jjmarr wrote: post #66
FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

"I don't care about x" clearly indicates a lack of want but is considered ruder than "I don't want x".

I suspect that whether it's considered more rude will vary by culture, but yes I think "I don't care about x" is a way to specify a lack of want in contrast to a negative want. It's also probably the most common way, but still used rarely I find, maybe because people consider it more rude.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#79

Post by FloorEgg »

shunia_huang wrote: post #75
FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

This is somehow real as I'm not so good at English but as a native Chinese speaker it feels a little bit hard to find the word/phrasing to express what I want to, but I guess your target audience should be more clear on what you are trying to express since it's the native thought process that the audience be familier with. To me personally, the same meaning requires a lot of extra work to be expressed in English rath…

It seems what you're pointing out is coming out a lot in this thread. As a solely English speaker (with very little French/Spanish), it's actually a bit of a novel concept for me.

I'm curious though:

Do you find it particularly hard to differentiate or clarify between you having 0 want or negative want?

E.g. "I want x" = 5 want

But

"I don't want x" = 0 want or -5 want???

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#80

Post by FloorEgg »

mathewsanders wrote: post #27

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

I made my own top level comment below about the ambiguity of "I don't want x" and how hard it is in English to distinguish between "I have zero want for x" and "I have negative want for x"

I didn't know about semiotic square, and appreciate learning about it. It points at exactly the property that I keep tripping over (and seeing others trip over).

Given that wants are an expression of values, and understanding other people's values enables empathy, I can't help but think this flaw in language is actually inhibiting empathy and cooperation at larger scales.

Post reply on HN