News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Geek behaviors present during conversations. Parent comment

Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by pvg on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @04:12PM (#1078876)
Of course it's deeply patronizing. It carries the presumption that you and nobody else is the Educator of Audiences and the Guardian of Validity of Discourse. Even if it might have an element of truth in a particular conversation, flaunting it (or just believing it) is a sign of profound social ineptitude.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by sketerpot on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @04:21PM (#1078903)
What the hell? It carries the presumption that you have something educational to say, but it certainly doesn't presume that the other person doesn't. Education can flow both ways. Indeed, it's more interesting that way.

Just look at any thread on this forum: people contribute information and correct each other and it's interesting, not patronizing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by thaumaturgy on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @04:39PM (#1078963)
I seriously doubt that in most social situations, HN-like discourse would be considered "interesting".

Geeks find the constant back-and-forth of corrections in dialogue to be interesting and educational. Non-geeks do not; they lose interest by about the second iteration, and will become annoyed shortly after.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by flog on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @07:35AM (#1080355)
Maybe the non-geeks are wrong?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by thaumaturgy on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @09:38AM (#1080564)
Typical geek response. :-) How long would you like to debate this, and to what end?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by pvg on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @04:33PM (#1078949)
The article is about actual conversations, not HN threads. Real life interactions have to do with whether the other party perceives you're being a patronizing git, not whether you believe you have something educational to say.

Little Edit: if you think describing 'I don't agree with you' as an 'altruistic desire to educate' and single-handedly preserving the 'validity of discourse' and the 'truth and correctness of human understanding of the world' is anything short of absurdly presumptuous, you might want to re-read the linked article very carefully.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by stralep on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @04:54PM (#1078999)
For example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1078529
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by gabrielroth on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @04:21PM (#1078908)
It carries the presumption that you and nobody else is the Educator of Audiences and the Guardian of Validity of Discourse.

Not necessarily. Preserving accuracy in a complex system with a lot of data flowing all over the place requires multiple checks throughout the system.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Geek behaviors present during conversations by pvg on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @04:36PM (#1078955)
Right. That succinctly describes something other than a 'conversation between humans'.
[ Parent | on HN ]