I think this is pointed at me. I do this. I do it IRL intentionally, but here by accident. Here, I purposely avoid posting walls of text here because the people are here to read your blog, not mine. When I write out a long comment, if there’s any way to make it laconic, even to the point of it being overly distilled into an obvious rhetorical statement, I’ll do it.
IRL I do it when I find myself in danger of suffering a long meandering collection of loosely connected tangents in desperate need of a point. This is abrasive behavior and it does not, in fact, lead to popularity. IRL I’m perfectly well aware that I’m being abrasive, and purposely so.
Here that was the effect, if not the intention. My intention in a comment section is to use economy of words. However, it’s not appropriate to “add” obvious rhetorical statements to a long form well structured intellectual treatise. It comes across as dismissive.
I apologize. I’ll post the longer form of my mental processes in the future, retard level rhetoric only when appropriate, and you may dissect or ignore them all at your leisure.
Im seeing this currently, we don't have 30 pages of legalese covering every possible iteration in our contractor agreements, so of course someone wants us to explain it in detail.
Stating, the contract is clear is enraging them because now they cannot jump on 1 misplaced comma to try and derail us.
And we now have lawyer trying us on becusse we did not state the obvious. I am trying to work out how to nicely reply, we did not think anyone would be dumb enough to not understand the obvious.
Explaining oneself is low-status behavior. I get that gammas and sometimes deltas like to do it even without prompt, but making anyone else explain himself is bound to be seen as very disrespectful boundary violation. It's particularly infuriating when the clueless low status has no idea what he's done wrong, but that's his issue and attempting to get an explanation for that on top of everything else and then trying to cast blame to the other party for overreacting is the cherry on top. Very difficult to communicate with those people. Every time I have to, it feels like I'm waiting to be given a fine.
As Vox points out, most of the time, the unstated does not, or at the very least should not, need to be stated. This is true notwithstanding the fact that natural language is surprisingly ambiguous and underdetermined.
The reason that the inherent ambiguities and underdetermination of natural language do not cause problems for the vast majority of ordinary communication. Really, they only become problems in two specific and related contexts: highly technical writing of any sort, and communicating with assholes in general.
The intersection of those two contexts is known as "legal writing," i.e., "drafting prose that is as pedantic as humanly possible."
Most people find the resulting prose not only difficult to get through, but positively annoying. They are entirely right to do so. It is not a natural way of communicating. A lot of the time it may be neither reasonable nor sensible. But it is, unfortunately, necessary when writing or responding to certain kinds of documents, e.g., anything having to do with insurance, regulatory authorities, contracts, etc. It's just what you have to do when operating under the assumption that the document is going to be interpreted by a Gamma asshole lawyer.
Vox's prior writings on Technical Experts v. Critical Challengers is very much on point here when trying to assist other people in your organization in reading or responding to such documents.
PA types are inherently angry and malicious for whatever reason. Their entire game is about injecting their toxic crap into the rest of us while appearing not to do so. Direct verbal beatdowns are the best response. And the most entertaining.
In certain cultures, more so than in others, being indirect and leaving certain things unsaid is a huge part of being socially competent. It is considered rude, crass, maladapted or even an attempt at domination to state things that could make your interlocutor uncomfortable or look bad. Rather, wrapping the unstated obvious in something bland is considered good manners, and everyone will understand what was meant anyways, and appreciate how you framed it.
Therefore, in such cultures, trying to force someone to state the unsaid is doubly rude, since that would force the other person to be rude too.
Yes. Vox has lived in Japan, which is on the all-time leaderboard for this very thing. The creative ways that Japanese people use to get their point across anyway could be the subject of an entire book.
Yes this sort of manipulation is just not seen in the public space.
This was very much the culture in the tribes I got to mix with in East Africa. Expats that couldn't read between the lines, or who refused to, never got on the inside track with locals. Patience and the ability to listen and engage in friendly polite super low-level debate was required to get anywhere in the long term. A conversation could take so long to get to the point it would drive me nuts, and I was one of the most patient expats. Many quit because they just can't work in this sort of environment. The thing is that once you get their trust by 'wasting so much time talking' then you find out that, after a couple of years, you can get a ton of things done in a community so fast it blows your mind. You have their trust and respect and then they don't want to disappoint you and they ensure your 'words' get results. It just takes years of building trust to get there. Most expat contracts only last 2-3yrs so they never get to that tipping point.
Direct confrontation was seen as boorish and unsophisticated, although an expat boss wasn't thought out of place by locals if he spoke bluntly when the situation demanded information be known quickly to avoid certain loss etc. You could get away with a lot if you had stored up a bunch of 'relationship credit' with your staff. And sometimes, usually only if you're punching up, they love a non-local saying out loud what no local person could ever expect to get away with. The dynamics can be fascinating.
The ability to speak well is highly valued and I was surprised how many village children could stand up and hold their own in public in a way that most adults in the West can't. Some of these twelve year old kids had no shoes and couldn't write but where already known orators. The ability to leverage words to get things done (for you by others) is valued way above getting things done yourself. Kind of opposite to how we are raised in the 'protestant work ethic' parts of the West.
I completely understand why it takes so long to gain trust. They have been shafted by everyone in history. Tribal wars since day dot. So why trust this white guy.
Very similar at my first job out of university being thrown straight into management at a factory. My bosses told me about how this and this union guy is hopeless and won´t work and hides behind his contract and the unions. I had absolutely no issues with them after the first "who is this 22yr old telling me what to do". Literally sitting down with them and telling them the latest fart jokes was enough to be accepted and have them pretty much doing their job properly.
This describes a number of gammas I've had to interact with, all were of the ''unsolicited moralistic harangue'' type. They have it in their head that everyone secretly believes the same things they do, but they're the only ones stunning and brave enough to be open about it. You can try to imply or even tell them in private that you understand but disagree, or that now is the time for said topic, but they never listen, and just keep badgering you about it, sometimes for months at a time. Of course none of that explains why mr. Brave Truth Speaker needs me to say anything for him, instead of just saying it himself.
In every case I have experienced this it is usually passing on a generalized update to SOP that has come around due to individual issues. Every person that "was just trying to understand" usually understood perfectly well and was looking for details that were irrelevant to them or were otherwise privileged. Yes it is always deltas and gammas and yes it is always annoying.
Exactly. And when you press them on the point, they will admit that they knew perfectly well what you were talking about, they just want to force you to say it.
I was immediately tempted to ask what situation inspired this post before realizing that was exactly the type of question that you are saying I shouldn’t ask. If you wanted to tell us you would have.
An apt illustration of the difference between the instinct caused by the behavioral pattern and the self-discipline that enables one to restrain the instinct and behave differently.
What’s hilarious is when they interject and then get tasked with something they didn’t anticipate. Many times a helpful idiot jumped in only to be handed the issue, with a “Glad you stepped up. It’s all yours now. Meeting adjourned.” STFU isn’t just for personal matters, it’s also career critical. Sometimes the best part was sitting there trying to figure who would break first and speak up. Patience is a virtue and most people hate silence. Asians have this down to a fine art.
That last sentence reminded me of a story from a young woman about her hawaiian/Japanese father. She said the whole family had been out to eat at a sushi place and the kids had noticed that the food was not good, and began criticizing the meal amongst themselves. Then someone asked , "What do you think, Dad?" "The food is not as I expected." was his reply.
Only you are correct master and we are unworthy recipients of your wisdom. Why haven’t you taken the sole governance of the world for the benefit of all the inferior people is something only you know the reason for. We live in hope your generosity will compel you to take your rightful place at the top of the monkeys hierarchy. Salve.
We have so many people who think they are Socrates.
I think this is pointed at me. I do this. I do it IRL intentionally, but here by accident. Here, I purposely avoid posting walls of text here because the people are here to read your blog, not mine. When I write out a long comment, if there’s any way to make it laconic, even to the point of it being overly distilled into an obvious rhetorical statement, I’ll do it.
IRL I do it when I find myself in danger of suffering a long meandering collection of loosely connected tangents in desperate need of a point. This is abrasive behavior and it does not, in fact, lead to popularity. IRL I’m perfectly well aware that I’m being abrasive, and purposely so.
Here that was the effect, if not the intention. My intention in a comment section is to use economy of words. However, it’s not appropriate to “add” obvious rhetorical statements to a long form well structured intellectual treatise. It comes across as dismissive.
I apologize. I’ll post the longer form of my mental processes in the future, retard level rhetoric only when appropriate, and you may dissect or ignore them all at your leisure.
You repeated your intentions 2 or arguably 3+ times. Tiny comments get read. 👍🏻
I’ll pare it down so you can miss the point even faster
Nevermind. I’m not responsible for your failures.
Im seeing this currently, we don't have 30 pages of legalese covering every possible iteration in our contractor agreements, so of course someone wants us to explain it in detail.
Stating, the contract is clear is enraging them because now they cannot jump on 1 misplaced comma to try and derail us.
And we now have lawyer trying us on becusse we did not state the obvious. I am trying to work out how to nicely reply, we did not think anyone would be dumb enough to not understand the obvious.
Its tiresome.
Lawyers are paid to not understand the obvious.
This is also why giving or taking personal advice online is so generally worthless as often times material facts are not disclosed.
And then it gets even worse due to people's tendency toward projection. So they'll project their own personal circumstance to fill in the gaps.
Enough said.
Explaining oneself is low-status behavior. I get that gammas and sometimes deltas like to do it even without prompt, but making anyone else explain himself is bound to be seen as very disrespectful boundary violation. It's particularly infuriating when the clueless low status has no idea what he's done wrong, but that's his issue and attempting to get an explanation for that on top of everything else and then trying to cast blame to the other party for overreacting is the cherry on top. Very difficult to communicate with those people. Every time I have to, it feels like I'm waiting to be given a fine.
As Vox points out, most of the time, the unstated does not, or at the very least should not, need to be stated. This is true notwithstanding the fact that natural language is surprisingly ambiguous and underdetermined.
The reason that the inherent ambiguities and underdetermination of natural language do not cause problems for the vast majority of ordinary communication. Really, they only become problems in two specific and related contexts: highly technical writing of any sort, and communicating with assholes in general.
The intersection of those two contexts is known as "legal writing," i.e., "drafting prose that is as pedantic as humanly possible."
Most people find the resulting prose not only difficult to get through, but positively annoying. They are entirely right to do so. It is not a natural way of communicating. A lot of the time it may be neither reasonable nor sensible. But it is, unfortunately, necessary when writing or responding to certain kinds of documents, e.g., anything having to do with insurance, regulatory authorities, contracts, etc. It's just what you have to do when operating under the assumption that the document is going to be interpreted by a Gamma asshole lawyer.
Vox's prior writings on Technical Experts v. Critical Challengers is very much on point here when trying to assist other people in your organization in reading or responding to such documents.
Tldr; Street smarts vs book smarts.
Omerta.
PA types are inherently angry and malicious for whatever reason. Their entire game is about injecting their toxic crap into the rest of us while appearing not to do so. Direct verbal beatdowns are the best response. And the most entertaining.
Hence why here in the balkans, we have the phrase "ne seri".
My Balkan heritage isn't Serbian, but it's more than close enough to get the gist. Ne seri, indeed.
I don't want them in my audience. I don't want you in my audience.
Banned for undesirability.
Some people are incapable of reading no trespassing signs.
In certain cultures, more so than in others, being indirect and leaving certain things unsaid is a huge part of being socially competent. It is considered rude, crass, maladapted or even an attempt at domination to state things that could make your interlocutor uncomfortable or look bad. Rather, wrapping the unstated obvious in something bland is considered good manners, and everyone will understand what was meant anyways, and appreciate how you framed it.
Therefore, in such cultures, trying to force someone to state the unsaid is doubly rude, since that would force the other person to be rude too.
Yes. Vox has lived in Japan, which is on the all-time leaderboard for this very thing. The creative ways that Japanese people use to get their point across anyway could be the subject of an entire book.
Yes this sort of manipulation is just not seen in the public space.
This was very much the culture in the tribes I got to mix with in East Africa. Expats that couldn't read between the lines, or who refused to, never got on the inside track with locals. Patience and the ability to listen and engage in friendly polite super low-level debate was required to get anywhere in the long term. A conversation could take so long to get to the point it would drive me nuts, and I was one of the most patient expats. Many quit because they just can't work in this sort of environment. The thing is that once you get their trust by 'wasting so much time talking' then you find out that, after a couple of years, you can get a ton of things done in a community so fast it blows your mind. You have their trust and respect and then they don't want to disappoint you and they ensure your 'words' get results. It just takes years of building trust to get there. Most expat contracts only last 2-3yrs so they never get to that tipping point.
Direct confrontation was seen as boorish and unsophisticated, although an expat boss wasn't thought out of place by locals if he spoke bluntly when the situation demanded information be known quickly to avoid certain loss etc. You could get away with a lot if you had stored up a bunch of 'relationship credit' with your staff. And sometimes, usually only if you're punching up, they love a non-local saying out loud what no local person could ever expect to get away with. The dynamics can be fascinating.
The ability to speak well is highly valued and I was surprised how many village children could stand up and hold their own in public in a way that most adults in the West can't. Some of these twelve year old kids had no shoes and couldn't write but where already known orators. The ability to leverage words to get things done (for you by others) is valued way above getting things done yourself. Kind of opposite to how we are raised in the 'protestant work ethic' parts of the West.
I completely understand why it takes so long to gain trust. They have been shafted by everyone in history. Tribal wars since day dot. So why trust this white guy.
Very similar at my first job out of university being thrown straight into management at a factory. My bosses told me about how this and this union guy is hopeless and won´t work and hides behind his contract and the unions. I had absolutely no issues with them after the first "who is this 22yr old telling me what to do". Literally sitting down with them and telling them the latest fart jokes was enough to be accepted and have them pretty much doing their job properly.
The West needs a movie about this 😳
This describes a number of gammas I've had to interact with, all were of the ''unsolicited moralistic harangue'' type. They have it in their head that everyone secretly believes the same things they do, but they're the only ones stunning and brave enough to be open about it. You can try to imply or even tell them in private that you understand but disagree, or that now is the time for said topic, but they never listen, and just keep badgering you about it, sometimes for months at a time. Of course none of that explains why mr. Brave Truth Speaker needs me to say anything for him, instead of just saying it himself.
Piss off. We're not your shabbos goyim.
In every case I have experienced this it is usually passing on a generalized update to SOP that has come around due to individual issues. Every person that "was just trying to understand" usually understood perfectly well and was looking for details that were irrelevant to them or were otherwise privileged. Yes it is always deltas and gammas and yes it is always annoying.
Exactly. And when you press them on the point, they will admit that they knew perfectly well what you were talking about, they just want to force you to say it.
That is dishonest, obnoxious, and retarded.
I was immediately tempted to ask what situation inspired this post before realizing that was exactly the type of question that you are saying I shouldn’t ask. If you wanted to tell us you would have.
An apt illustration of the difference between the instinct caused by the behavioral pattern and the self-discipline that enables one to restrain the instinct and behave differently.
And besides, long-time SG readers who've been noticing Vox's concepts irl could recognize such a situation from their own lives from the title alone.
It is clearly a manipulation tactic, and if a manipulation is being deployed then the odds are they are up to no good.
What’s hilarious is when they interject and then get tasked with something they didn’t anticipate. Many times a helpful idiot jumped in only to be handed the issue, with a “Glad you stepped up. It’s all yours now. Meeting adjourned.” STFU isn’t just for personal matters, it’s also career critical. Sometimes the best part was sitting there trying to figure who would break first and speak up. Patience is a virtue and most people hate silence. Asians have this down to a fine art.
That last sentence reminded me of a story from a young woman about her hawaiian/Japanese father. She said the whole family had been out to eat at a sushi place and the kids had noticed that the food was not good, and began criticizing the meal amongst themselves. Then someone asked , "What do you think, Dad?" "The food is not as I expected." was his reply.
Only you are correct master and we are unworthy recipients of your wisdom. Why haven’t you taken the sole governance of the world for the benefit of all the inferior people is something only you know the reason for. We live in hope your generosity will compel you to take your rightful place at the top of the monkeys hierarchy. Salve.
What part of "Sigma" was hard to understand?
HAH, the Gamma seethe 😂