News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No feigning surprise by jancsika on Saturday April 29, 2017 @04:29PM (#14228581)
> A key trick here is to not act surprised even if you’re actually surprised. (because whether you’re performing surprise or just genuinely a bit surprised, it has the same negative effect!)

I think you mean "show surprise" rather than "feigning surprise". "Feign" means "to pretend", while people who express genuine surprise are still "showing" surprise.

Re:No feigning surprise by matthewwiese on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:02PM (#14228721)
I'm glad somebody else noticed the incorrect use of `feign.`

If anything, if one feigns surprise, they are acting in bad faith. I agree with the title of the article -- don't feign surprise, e.g. if somebody gives you a gift you knew was coming and pretend you're baffled by its appearance -- but do show surprise when someone you know who is intelligent is missing a small puzzle piece in their knowledge space.

Not in a belligerent way, of course, as the author points out: use it as an opportunity to educate. I ain't about to berate a friend of mine for not knowing something, but it would be quite disingenuous to hide my surprise; in my eyes, that's comparable to talking down to them.

Re:No feigning surprise by skybrian on Saturday April 29, 2017 @07:20PM (#14229337)
I think the author was using "feign" to mean "express in a negative way" - focus on what it looks like, not how honest it is. At the point where someone is saying "how can you not know that" they've already gone beyond their immediate honest reaction into moral judgement.
Re:No feigning surprise by matthewwiese on Saturday April 29, 2017 @09:48PM (#14229765)
Oh I no doubt understood the author's intentions with using feign in that manner. However, that does not mean it was the correct term to use, despite what we may "feel" or "get" from it; nevertheless, troubling ourselves with such a minor detail is really rather ridiculous. Besides, if we go any further, conversation on this runs the risk of igniting a rather banal descriptivist/prescriptivist flame war. :)

The closest term to describe what the author meant is I believe a litote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes

Re:No feigning surprise by edzorg on Sunday April 30, 2017 @04:32PM (#14233675)
I think this is a good example of a 'well, actually.' https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment
Re:No feigning surprise by jancsika on Monday May 01, 2017 @05:48PM (#14242024)
I'm not grandstanding. I can prove it by admitting I still don't understand the rule:

If a newcomer expresses genuine surprise, are they breaking the "No feigning surprise" rule or not?

edit: typo

Re:No feigning surprise by adrienne on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @03:34AM (#14244616)
There is no "litote". "Litotes" is not a plural noun.
Re:No feigning surprise by Swizec on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:11PM (#14228772)
> if somebody gives you a gift you knew was coming and pretend you're baffled by its appearance

I never know what to do when somebody goes through a lot of trouble to surprise me, but I figure it out anyway. Usually I play along and act surprised because it makes the other person feel good.

Imagine your girlfriend was planning a surprise birthday present for six months and somehow the secret leaked. You saw an open tab, or one of your common friends spilled the beans, or whatever. Are you going to ruin her excitement about surprising you just because "feigning surprise is bad"?

Re:No feigning surprise by fossuser on Saturday April 29, 2017 @06:37PM (#14229157)
There are people who feign surprise in the actual sense and pretend to be surprised that someone doesn't know something.

Usually in the form of "You don't know what X is?!" When someone asks an honest question.

It's pretty toxic behavior and I've found it typically comes from people less secure in their own understanding.

It's a shame because admitting ignorance and asking questions is hard for most people and one of the best ways to learn.

When people feign surprise it can scare someone into not asking.

Something I wrote about this a while back: http://zalberico.com/essay/2017/02/21/asking-questions.html

Re:No feigning surprise by bglusman on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:06PM (#14228747)
It's not mentioned here, but when Recurse Center explains this rule to recursers, it's explicitly discussed that despite the name, it doesn't actually matter if you're actually surprised, it's still a "violation" of the rule to express that surprise in the particular terms of "I can't beleive you don't know about x!". However, violations of the rules are not a "big deal" that you are made to feel terrible about either, it is more a vocabulary for telling you in turn that you made a misstep with your reaction, and let's move on.

Julia talks about it in your quote above, but she says not to "act surprised", but she doesn't mean act as in fake, or feign, she means the action of expressing surprise. Another good reference is xkcd[0]. The point is not whether you're surprised, but the chilling effect that the judgment that someone should have already known this thing can have on their confidence, willingness to admit to not knowing things, and to the social dynamic of interacting with you.

[0]https://xkcd.com/1053/

Re:No feigning surprise by bglusman on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:10PM (#14228766)
Oh, whoops! hadn't finished to see she already included the XKCD in the post!
Re:No feigning surprise by mcphage on Saturday April 29, 2017 @08:17PM (#14229527)
People very much play up their reaction when they find something someone else doesn't know. "What?? You don't know Regular Expressions?!" Are they surprised? Yeah, maybe a little. But they exhibit an overacted, exaggerated reaction instead of a natural reaction of just "oh, huh, okay."
Re:No feigning surprise by pvg on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:07PM (#14228754)
The thing you're quoting doesn't misuse 'feign' and the rule she's referring to in her post is talking about feigning.
Re:No feigning surprise by jancsika on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:43PM (#14228929)
Correct. I'm quoting what the author calls a "trick" to help follow the rule about not feigning surprise. But the "trick" I quoted is about avoiding showing genuine surprise. In other words, "a trick to keep from pretending to be surprised is to avoid showing genuine surprise." That doesn't make sense, and it leads me to believe the author didn't understand the definition of "feign".

The reason I mentioned it is that misusing a common term can be confusing and unnecessarily time consuming. As evidence, look at the response of bglusman above:

> It's not mentioned here, but when Recurse Center explains this rule to recursers, it's explicitly discussed that despite the name, it doesn't actually matter if you're actually surprised, it's still a "violation" of the rule to express that surprise in the particular terms of "I can't beleive you don't know about x!".

So in this case you have an explicitly written rule about feigning surprise, supplemented by an oral tradition that expands the rule to cover genuine surprise.

edit: soften, fix grammar

Re:No feigning surprise by pvg on Saturday April 29, 2017 @06:24PM (#14229104)
In other words, "a trick to keep from pretending to be surprised is to avoid showing genuine surprise." That doesn't make sense, and it leads me to believe the author didn't understand the definition of "feign".

It makes perfect sense. If you suppress the urge to show surprise in these situation even when you are genuinely surprised, you won't feign surprise either. She's saying 'avoid showing surprise in that context altogether'. I don't see anything in there that suggests the writer didn't know what 'feign' meant.

Re:No feigning surprise by jancsika on Saturday April 29, 2017 @05:55PM (#14228986)
Also-- I do like the actual content of the written-rule-plus-oral-tradition. I think a lot of the cases where newcomers get flustered comes from genuine enthusiasm of a mentor who fails to reflect on the power imbalance their increased level of knowledge creates. A joke or affectation that would be playful between two knowledgeable insiders can on the other hand easily crush the spirits of an outsider.