Re:What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)
by Atheros on Thursday January 19, 2023 @01:03PM
(#34443412)
It's impractical for everyone and impossible for some people to interpret every question through the lens of the person asking the question. The use of American euphemisms is constantly changing and it is unreasonable to expect non-native English speakers or neurodivergent people to keep up.
Practice empathy. Guess at others' intent in order to do your best to give others the information that they want. But then insist that they use plain English in the future and that doing otherwise is wrong.
Re:What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)
by bityard on Thursday January 19, 2023 @02:56PM
(#34444816)
> if you speak directly, what will be heard by your listeners is whatever your statements are presumed to imply, not what is actually stated—regardless of whether or not those implications are intended or not.
This pretty well sums up my experience of the HN comments section.
Re:What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)
by foobarbecue on Thursday January 19, 2023 @01:56PM
(#34444059)
I agree that one should attempt to answer the /intended/ question.
In this case, however, it wasn't semantic. My ex and I were on the same page as to how we were using "think". She was claiming that by our shared definition of think, most people didn't, and we did.
The useful interpretation is to exercise empathy and put yourself in the mind of the person writing the questionnaire, and ask what definition they are likely using. For example, your therapist doesn't care if you had a random intrusive thought thirty years ago, they care if you presently have actual designs of self-harm. Likewise, in the OP, the person interpreting the security clearance doesn't care if you were accidentally caught up in a silly witch hunt when you were 12.