quote:

---

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Nobody makes *that* many "misinterpretations" by accident.

---

Yes they do.

Communication is hard. Clear communication is even harder. Misunderstandings and miscommunication to some degree or another is the norm. There are a few things you can do to try and help communication go more smoothly:

- Try to be as clear and precise as possible. Try not to assume that other people will always understand what you mean or share your background knowledge. Sometimes this is unavoidable: for example, I'm assuming you'll understand all the words I write in this post. But be reasonable and try to minimize these assumptions.

- When you're not sure of something, don't be afraid to ask clarifying questions. It helps if these questions aren't hostile; the person you're talking to wasn't being confusing on purpose. It made sense to them.

- When someone else misunderstands you, don't get mad. Just clarify what you meant so that they understand and can respond to what you were trying to say.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by confusion, negligence, or laziness.
 

---

Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Exactly!
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by confusion, negligence, or laziness.

---

'we got some easy marks here guys' said sixfinger samp to his greaser buddies
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I already know to make an exception for you, dollface.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
In general, I would agree whole heartedly, but there needs to be an exception if people have shown themselves to assign the worst possible meaning to your words repeatedly and do not accept corrections of miscommunication.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
You mean, like Rivka?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Naw, rivka only corrects my grammar, which I don't mind a bit!

Heya rivka, I'm from Cali, so I forget, do yokes have a lot of protean?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Your going to land up upsetting her.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
You are not from California if you say that. Maybe you think you are... But you aren't.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm a fourth generation Los Angeleno...so tell my great grandmother.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Since when was that in California...
 

---

Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
Dan, let's say that I have two models in my mind - "What Would Honest Bob Do?" and "What Would Dishonest Bob Do?".

Honest Bob does his best to not misconstrue your argument, but he sometimes just honestly misunderstands a point you're making.

Dishonest Bob does his best to so misconstrue it, to the best of what he thinks he can get away with. Indeed he constantly seems to explore the limits of how much he can get away with, and backs off a lie only when he can no longer remotely plausibly stick to it. Until that time he'll use it to maximum effect.

If someone's behaviour consistently matches hypothetical Dishonest Bob... it gets hard for me to believe them to be Honest Bob. Because from the outside perspective they seem indistinguishable from Dishonest Bob.

Honest Bob and Dishonest Bob assign vastly different utilities to sincerity, and it shows.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Out of curiosity, in your schema is there a middle ground, or does everyone fall into either Honest Bob or Dishonest Bob?
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove:
Out of curiosity, in your schema is there a middle ground, or does everyone fall into either Honest Bob or Dishonest Bob?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Dan, let's say that I have two models in my mind - "What Would Honest Bob Do?" and "What Would Dishonest Bob Do?".

Honest Bob does his best to not misconstrue your argument, but he sometimes just honestly misunderstands a point you're making.

Dishonest Bob does his best to so misconstrue it, to the best of what he thinks he can get away with. Indeed he constantly seems to explore the limits of how much he can get away with, and backs off a lie only when he can no longer remotely plausibly stick to it. Until that time he'll use it to maximum effect.

If someone's behaviour consistently matches hypothetical Dishonest Bob... it gets hard for me to believe them to be Honest Bob. Because from the outside perspective they seem indistinguishable from Dishonest Bob.

Honest Bob and Dishonest Bob assign vastly different utilities to sincerity, and it shows.

---

This system sounds very rational, but it's not really. Let's scrutinize it.

One problem is that for it to work, you need to be very good at telling the difference between someone honestly misunderstanding and and someone intentionally misconstruing your point.

If you're not good at that, then you'll assume someone is a Dishonest Bob based on your mistaken impression of their actions.

But if you are good at telling the difference, then you don't need the Honest/Dishonest Bob models. You can just act based on your assessment of each individual miscommunication.

So we're back to square one: how you are assessing each individual misinterpretation. If you're assessing them badly, the repercussions will completely destroy the conclusions you draw.

I think the truth of the matter is that we're none of us mind readers. Even when someone else carefully communicates an idea to us with good explanations, we have to recreate that idea in our own minds in order to understand it. Because we have no method of perfect transmission, our understanding of that idea will often differ slightly from that of the person who explained it to us.

And if misinterpretation can occur even when both parties are allies, cooperating and helping each other learn, imagine how easily misinterpretations must occur between adversaries!

That's why a general policy of positive interpretation is really helpful when arguing. When someone says something that sounds wrong or evil or like they misunderstood you... Take a moment. Try to think of the best reasonable interpretation for what they've said, rather than your first impression. And then respond to that. If you can't think of any positive interpretation, then ask a clarifying question before you give any major arguments, to check your impression.

If you respond to a positive interpretation, and that interpretation is right, the conversation flows smoothly. If it's wrong, then at least you're unlikely to get bogged down into bitter arguments over intentionally misconstruing someone to make them seem evil/stupid/etc.

Another good reason to do this is that you're arguing against the best possible argument that you can find in what they said, instead of the worst. That's good, because it makes you think harder about your own position, and come up with better arguments.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Want? More like think so.

But I'd accept chaotic neutral with good tendencies.
 

---

Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
I can't believe there are D&D alignment jokes in my thread and I haven't participated in them yet.

This is unacceptable.

Stone Wolf, "Good" in the alignment system doesn't necessarily equate to "not a rude jerk" (think of the classic overbearing asshole Paladin stereotype).

So I think Orincoro could easily be Chaotic Good. He just happens to also have the character trait "is sometimes a rude jerk." Seems perfectly fine. Especially if he's mostly just a rude jerk to people he sees as too Lawful or too Evil.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Chaotic Good is more likely to be rude than Lawful Evil, for example. It's the ends that are different.
 

---

Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 

quote:

---

Another good reason to do this is that you're arguing against the best possible argument that you can find in what they said, instead of the worst.

---

quote:

---

That's why a general policy of positive interpretation is really helpful when arguing.

---

quote:

---

If you can't think of any positive interpretation, then ask a clarifying question before you give any major arguments, to check your impression.

---