Writing style

[Jack D Ripper]

...Perhaps due to being polite. [...] Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth. So one either dissembles or one is not polite. So this really comes down to a question of values, of what one regards as most important. That might vary on a case by case basis, as sometimes the one approach may seem more appropriate whereas in other cases the other approach may seem most appropriate. Sometimes, a "useful" response will be impossible.

Personally, I prefer to focus on courtesy, rather than politeness. Courtesy is a code of practice that allows us to speak unpalatable truths without insult, and the violence that inevitably follows. If politeness requires - even only "sometimes" - that one not speak the truth, then I reject it. But you're right, of course, that it is not always possible to make a "useful" response. 😧

I do not understand the distinction between courtesy and politeness that you are trying to make.

You made the difference clearer than I did. "Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth." Courtesy, as I understand it, does not require falsehood. Essentially, it only requires that we avoid ad hominem attacks, although we usually describe and understand it in much simpler (and less philosophical) words. 😉

I think in many cases, speaking unpalatable truths cannot be done without insult. Of course, there is a difference between saying, "I believe you might be mistaken" and "You are wrong, you moron!", but sometimes people are offended and feel insulted at the suggestion that they might be making a mistake.

I don't know of any truth that requires me to insult the person I'm talking to. Avoiding insult is not always obvious or easy, but I think it can always be done ... can't it? 🤔

I guess my example was not clear enough. Consider responses to these questions:

Does this outfit make me look fat?

How do you like this meal I made?

How do I look?

Now, imagine the truthful answer to these questions being as bad as possible. (E.g., Yes, it makes you look even fatter than you are; the meal was the most disgusting thing I have ever put in my mouth; you look terrible today, like a drowned rat.) How will you respond honestly without insult?

Will you respond thusly:

"Hey, look over there." And then run away? Of course, that is not answering the questions.


These particular questions (and answers) are not from my own experience (thankfully), but they are intended to be such that people can relate to them, and are, I am led to believe, not rare sorts of questions.


Also, of course, some people feel insulted easily (which I intended to convey in my earlier response, but evidently failed to do so), where one can simply assert, "I believe you might be mistaken," and the person reacts as if you said, "you are a total moron and are completely wrong about everything you have ever said in your entire life." Have you never encountered such people? If not in real life, in an online forum, perhaps?

[creation]

But the actual message is NOT 'lost' at all. It is just being HIDDEN, from 'you'. And, 'I' WILL REVEAL 'it' when I am READY TO.

No, you won't, because I won't be reading.

Once again, you have LOST, or MISSED, the actual message, because the message was NEVER personally about 'you', "pattern-chaser".

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of messages getting missed, misinterpreted, or misunderstood because people look at messages as though they revolve around them, personally.

I had hoped you might just say what you mean, but I have waited long enough, I feel.

You can hope for many things. But, just hoping does NOT achieve ANY thing at all, REALLY. Just hoping will also NEVER provide you with what you Truly want.

By the way, I have REPEATEDLY said what I mean. That is; I MEAN - if ANY one wants to find out what another one Truly means, then all that needs to be done is to just ask some clarifying questions. VERY simple, REALLY.

So, if you REALLY did want to KNOW what I mean, then ALL you have to do is just ask. Simplified to absolute PURE SIMPLICITY. Yet, most adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, can NOT YET SEE this. As evidenced and PROVEN above.

Perhaps I'm making a terrible mistake; I shall never know. I wish you well; take care.

But you could KNOW. That is; if you REMAINED OPEN, and STOPPED RUNNING AWAY.

[creation]

But the actual message is NOT 'lost' at all. It is just being HIDDEN, from 'you'. And, 'I' WILL REVEAL 'it' when I am READY TO.

No, you won't, because I won't be reading.

Your "logic" does NOT work here.

Just because you will not read some thing, then this does NOT stop another writing/saying some thing. So, I STILL WILL REVEAL 'it', when I am READY TO.

When 'you' STOP thinking that things are about 'you', or that things revolve around 'you', then 'you' will START SEEING things far MORE CLEARLY.

[creation]

However, being EVER willing to simplify AND clarify things, instead of EVER wanting to, so call, "soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales" does NOT necessarily help readers at all. If readers, for example, have absolutely NO interest in what has been simplified, and NEVER seek CLARIFICATION, themselves, then for the writer 'to clarify', for EACH and ALL individual DIFFERENT readers, ends up taking thousands upon thousands of more little marks on paper.

So, for a writer, to be 'ever willing to simplify and clarify' is a Truly simple and easy thing to do indeed. However to find the least amount of the EXACT RIGHT little marks, to put down so that ALL readers can gain CLARITY is NOT some thing that has been achieved YET.

Creation's penchant for capital letters is a minor problem. His misplacement and misuse of words. his redundancy, and his improper grammar is worse.

What do you mean by 'redundancy' here?

And, where exactly is my, supposed, "misplacement of words"?

By the way, 'misuse of words' is a VERY relative perspective, based solely upon a VERY subjective point of view.

IN the above segment, creation capitalizes "EVER" twice. It's the wrong word.

What can be noticed in my WHOLE post and NOT just from the tiny segmented part above is that I began my reply by writing; But being willing to simplify, clarify, AND explain things in VERY simple and easy terms is ACTUALLY an EXTREMELY simple and easy thing to do. Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that the 'EVER' word is NOT in this part, which were my OWN WORDS.

When I wrote the SEGMENTED PART I wrote that with the EVER word then. This was to EMPHASIZE that I was copying the actual words used by the one who wrote that way and who was being quoted.

If it is the, supposedly, WRONG word, then okay. But I was only COPYING the words that ANOTHER had used.

Does he mean "always" (or even "ALWAYS")?

Who is "he", here? The one who originally wrote the quote, which I just COPIED, or me?

Even had he written "always", the word would have been misplaced.

I did NOT write "always", so the point that the word would have been misplaced is completely moot.

""Being ALWAYS willing to simplify" suggests that the writer has no interests other than his desire to simplify.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of this?

Some take this to suggest that a human being might, in fact, have a interest, or many other interests, AS WELL AS just always being willing to simplify.

A human being can be ALWAYS willing to simplify as well as have other interests like, for example; breathing, and/or running. The three interests can co-exist together.

In the next sentence, creation runs on and on. "EACH and ALL individual DIFFERENT readers..." is simply silly and redundant.

So, what would 'you' write, which emphasizes the fact that a writer is looking for words that can be simple and clear to ALL readers, even with the knowledge that EVERY reader is a unique and different individual, with their own point of view.

So is the "more" in last clause of the sentence.

The reason WHY the 'more' word was used was because the original writer was claiming that 'readers have to identify thousands of little marks on paper, and make sense of them immediately". I was making the point that if readers do NOT clarify with the writer, what the writer actually means, then the writer will have to use thousands upon thousands of MORE little marks on paper, than the thousands, which were originally mentioned, to be ABLE TO 'clarify' for ALL of the different individuals because of their EACH own, different, points of views.

Let's try a translation:

Simplifying does not necessarily help readers. Some readers prefer prose that "soar(s) high above the crowd, singing like nightingales". No prose can be simple and clear to thousands of different readers, each with his own point of view and level of education.

Besides the first sentence here, you could not be MORE WRONG in your OWN translation.

I suggest you CLARIFY with me, the writer, BEFORE you start making ASSUMPTIONS, about what I actually meant, and then proposing your OWN views as though they are RIGHT.

Also, what can be RECOGNIZED, and CLEARLY SEEN, is your OWN BELIEFS, which is what is STOPPING you from SEEING what I have actually meant.

How about we try again?

Simplifying does not necessarily help readers, as evidenced and proven above. ALL readers have their own preferences, but there still is a prose that CAN BE, and will be, written CLEAR, concise, and precise enough to, and for, ALL the different readers, each, obviously, with their own point of view and level of education.

And, what the purpose of this prose is, is ALREADY KNOWN.

Now, do you have any actual thing to say on the actual points that I have raised here?

[creation]

You made the difference clearer than I did. "Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth." Courtesy, as I understand it, does not require falsehood. Essentially, it only requires that we avoid ad hominem attacks, although we usually describe and understand it in much simpler (and less philosophical) words.





I don't know of any truth that requires me to insult the person I'm talking to. Avoiding insult is not always obvious or easy, but I think it can always be done ... can't it?

I guess my example was not clear enough. Consider responses to these questions:

Does this outfit make me look fat?

How do you like this meal I made?

How do I look?

Now, imagine the truthful answer to these questions being as bad as possible.

But there is NO actual 'bad' in relation to truth.

Only 'you', human beings, look at things as though there is some 'bad', or 'good', in them.

Obviously, what 'you', adult human beings do to the environment and to each other and say and do to children can be 'bad', BUT, just expressing a truth to an adult can NEVER be 'bad'.

(E.g., Yes, it makes you look even fatter than you are; the meal was the most disgusting thing I have ever put in my mouth; you look terrible today, like a drowned rat.) How will you respond honestly without insult?

LOL But this is OBVIOUSLY NOT 'truth', NOR 'honesty'.

Will you respond thusly:

"Hey, look over there." And then run away? Of course, that is not answering the questions.


These particular questions (and answers) are not from my own experience (thankfully), but they are intended to be such that people can relate to them, and are, I am led to believe, not rare sorts of questions.

These particular questions may be VERY relatable to adults. But, OBVIOUSLY, the answers are RARELY ever relatable, if at all. These types of answers are just of your OWN imagination, and are NOT relatable to thee actual 'Truth', Itself. These, imagined, answers have NO bearing whatsoever on thee actual Truth of things.

Also, of course, some people feel insulted easily (which I intended to convey in my earlier response, but evidently failed to do so), where one can simply assert, "I believe you might be mistaken," and the person reacts as if you said, "you are a total moron and are completely wrong about everything you have ever said in your entire life." Have you never encountered such people? If not in real life, in an online forum, perhaps?

If, and when, adult people "feel insulted easily" (or feel insulted in any other way), then that is NOT because of the truth at all. They feel this way because of their own insecurities and of their own UNKNOWING of thee actual Truth of things.

[Pattern-chaser]

You made the difference clearer than I did. "Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth." Courtesy, as I understand it, does not require falsehood. Essentially, it only requires that we avoid ad hominem attacks, although we usually describe and understand it in much simpler (and less philosophical) words.

I don't know of any truth that requires me to insult the person I'm talking to. Avoiding insult is not always obvious or easy, but I think it can always be done ... can't it?

I guess my example was not clear enough. Consider responses to these questions:

Does this outfit make me look fat?

How do you like this meal I made?

How do I look?

Now, imagine the truthful answer to these questions being as bad as possible. (E.g., Yes, it makes you look even fatter than you are; the meal was the most disgusting thing I have ever put in my mouth; you look terrible today, like a drowned rat.) How will you respond honestly without insult?

Will you respond thusly:

"Hey, look over there." And then run away? Of course, that is not answering the questions.


These particular questions (and answers) are not from my own experience (thankfully), but they are intended to be such that people can relate to them, and are, I am led to believe, not rare sorts of questions.


Also, of course, some people feel insulted easily (which I intended to convey in my earlier response, but evidently failed to do so), where one can simply assert, "I believe you might be mistaken," and the person reacts as if you said, "you are a total moron and are completely wrong about everything you have ever said in your entire life." Have you never encountered such people? If not in real life, in an online forum, perhaps?

I see what you're getting at now. And I'm afraid I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Your questions centre on social communication, and I'm autistic, which impacts heavily on my abilities in this area (I have none). I don't think I can make useful responses to your questions, or not the ones you want or expect, anyway.

[Jack D Ripper]

I guess my example was not clear enough. Consider responses to these questions:

Does this outfit make me look fat?

How do you like this meal I made?

How do I look?

Now, imagine the truthful answer to these questions being as bad as possible. (E.g., Yes, it makes you look even fatter than you are; the meal was the most disgusting thing I have ever put in my mouth; you look terrible today, like a drowned rat.) How will you respond honestly without insult?

Will you respond thusly:

"Hey, look over there." And then run away? Of course, that is not answering the questions.


These particular questions (and answers) are not from my own experience (thankfully), but they are intended to be such that people can relate to them, and are, I am led to believe, not rare sorts of questions.


Also, of course, some people feel insulted easily (which I intended to convey in my earlier response, but evidently failed to do so), where one can simply assert, "I believe you might be mistaken," and the person reacts as if you said, "you are a total moron and are completely wrong about everything you have ever said in your entire life." Have you never encountered such people? If not in real life, in an online forum, perhaps?

I see what you're getting at now. And I'm afraid I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Your questions centre on social communication, and I'm autistic, which impacts heavily on my abilities in this area (I have none). I don't think I can make useful responses to your questions, or not the ones you want or expect, anyway. 🙃

That's okay. My point was simply that sometimes honesty and courtesy conflict, and one must choose one over the other in a particular instance.

This sort of thing often happens when there are two values that one has, as they typically do not perfectly coincide. And then one must decide, in a particular instance, which one "wins" in that instance. It may be that one "wins" in one instance, and the other in another instance, which may depend upon some third thing that one values, or ....

[Jack D Ripper]

... Your questions centre on social communication, and I'm autistic, which impacts heavily on my abilities in this area (I have none). ...

If you have none, then there are people who have less than none. If I were compiling a list of people who know nothing about social communication, I would not have been thinking about you at all. You seem like a total amateur at failing to appreciate the social niceties, particularly compared with others who I will not name, as that would likely go against forum rules, and I have no wish to stir up those people or engage with them in conversation.

So, if you are very autistic (which, I am aware, is going beyond your claim), you must be putting some effort into trying to conform to the social norms. And you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, judging from my limited exposure to your posts.

[Pattern-chaser]

I see what you're getting at now. And I'm afraid I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Your questions centre on social communication, and I'm autistic, which impacts heavily on my abilities in this area (I have none). I don't think I can make useful responses to your questions, or not the ones you want or expect, anyway.

That's okay. My point was simply that sometimes honesty and courtesy conflict, and one must choose one over the other in a particular instance.

This sort of thing often happens when there are two values that one has, as they typically do not perfectly coincide. And then one must decide, in a particular instance, which one "wins" in that instance. It may be that one "wins" in one instance, and the other in another instance, which may depend upon some third thing that one values, or ....

OK, I'm going to come back in, because this is a subject that means a lot to me. I do so on the understanding that my views are mine, and may not be shared by ... anyone at all, except me.

I think courtesy was invented to avoid dishonesty, while also avoiding ad hominem attacks. On that basis, courtesy and honesty can never be in conflict.

If we see something we think we ought to comment on, we have three options.

1. We can choose not to speak.
2. We can address the issue with courtesy, scrupulously avoiding pesonal insult.
3. We can do what many typical humans do, and state our objections in the form of provocative insults, leading (perhaps) to violence.

If the matter is important enough that not speaking (1) is unacceptable, then courtesy dictates that we choose option 2. We still speak the truth, but we do so in as neutral a manner as we can. I wonder if the examples you describe might mainly be addressed by option 1? After all, values, as you say, are often not universally accepted, and there is no point in criticising someone because they don't share your own personal value-priority structure, is there?

[Jack D Ripper]

That's okay. My point was simply that sometimes honesty and courtesy conflict, and one must choose one over the other in a particular instance.

This sort of thing often happens when there are two values that one has, as they typically do not perfectly coincide. And then one must decide, in a particular instance, which one "wins" in that instance. It may be that one "wins" in one instance, and the other in another instance, which may depend upon some third thing that one values, or ....

OK, I'm going to come back in, because this is a subject that means a lot to me. I do so on the understanding that my views are mine, and may not be shared by ... anyone at all, except me. 😉

I think courtesy was invented to avoid dishonesty, while also avoiding ad hominem attacks. On that basis, courtesy and honesty can never be in conflict.

If we see something we think we ought to comment on, we have three options.

1. We can choose not to speak.
2. We can address the issue with courtesy, scrupulously avoiding pesonal insult.
3. We can do what many typical humans do, and state our objections in the form of provocative insults, leading (perhaps) to violence.

If the matter is important enough that not speaking (1) is unacceptable, then courtesy dictates that we choose option 2. We still speak the truth, but we do so in as neutral a manner as we can. I wonder if the examples you describe might mainly be addressed by option 1? After all, values, as you say, are often not universally accepted, and there is no point in criticising someone because they don't share your own personal value-priority structure, is there? 😉

First of all, I agree with you that one should choose option 1 on many occasions. However, very often, someone asks for an opinion, and then it can be awkward (or worse) to not respond. Then one can try to tell the truth as gently as possible, or one can dissemble, which, in some cases, would require lying (i.e., stating falsehoods), rather than just avoiding telling the truth. 3 is never courteous, obviously.

In the case of one of the examples I gave, about a meal being the most disgusting thing one ever put in one's mouth, one could say, "I did not much care for it", which is true, though is also an understatement. Usually, that is good enough, though there are occasions when someone is (how shall I say this?) almost determined to take offense. And then it will be difficult or impossible to avoid offending that someone without lying.

(I call that sort of response, of saying, "I did not much care for it" in such a situation, "gentle honesty", as opposed to being brutally honest, where someone says something like, "That was the most disgusting thing I ever put in my mouth", which is usually unnecessary to say.)

Our disagreement, then, can be seen to be relatively minor, over those cases where gentle honesty would still offend someone, and one may wish to consider the option of dishonesty, depending on the particulars involved. Normally, I prefer it if people either take option 1 or give me gentle honesty, but I am fine with the fact that there will always be people who do not like me,* as, indeed, there will always be people who don't like you no matter what you do. Some people, though, do not react well to that fact, and how one should deal with such people is the sort of question I have in mind, as one can either choose to lie or one offends them. Normally, I like to avoid such people as much as possible, as I do not like unreasonable people, who cannot handle such facts. But one does find oneself in their company occasionally, though how often depends a great deal on one's lifestyle, one's job, etc.


Your views, by the way, do not betray any hint of being autistic or unaware of the feelings of others, or any poor understanding of social niceties. But I do think you will occasionally offend someone if you give them gentle honesty, when they have asked a question. Of course, if one does not want to know the answer to a question, one ought not ask for it, but people do not follow this simple and obvious maxim.


Of course, one can be aware of such things and violate such social norms anyway, due to anger or due to a desire to express contempt for someone. Sometimes that is brought on by the other person not observing the social norms. Being rude to someone very often involves getting a rude response.


______________________________________________
* In point of fact, there are some people whose opinions are such that I would prefer them to dislike me, as they have poor judgement and poor taste, and therefore it is more insulting to be liked by them than disliked by them.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think courtesy was invented to avoid dishonesty, while also avoiding ad hominem attacks. On that basis, courtesy and honesty can never be in conflict.

If we see something we think we ought to comment on, we have three options.

1. We can choose not to speak.
2. We can address the issue with courtesy, scrupulously avoiding pesonal insult.
3. We can do what many typical humans do, and state our objections in the form of provocative insults, leading (perhaps) to violence.

If the matter is important enough that not speaking (1) is unacceptable, then courtesy dictates that we choose option 2. We still speak the truth, but we do so in as neutral a manner as we can. I wonder if the examples you describe might mainly be addressed by option 1? After all, values, as you say, are often not universally accepted, and there is no point in criticising someone because they don't share your own personal value-priority structure, is there?

First of all, I agree with you that one should choose option 1 on many occasions. However, very often, someone asks for an opinion, and then it can be awkward (or worse) to not respond. Then one can try to tell the truth as gently as possible, or one can dissemble, which, in some cases, would require lying (i.e., stating falsehoods), rather than just avoiding telling the truth. 3 is never courteous, obviously.

It's the decision to lie ("dissemble") that bothers me. In such circumstances, I try to avoid or ignore the question, usually with great and obvious awkwardness. When that fails, and if I am pressed, I will tell the truth "as gently as possible". But for me, with my somewhat limited social skills, this invariably makes matters much worse. I'm sorry to say your bum does look quite big in that dress. And there goes another potential friend. I'm not good at this....

[Steve3007]

It's the decision to lie ("dissemble") that bothers me. In such circumstances, I try to avoid or ignore the question, usually with great and obvious awkwardness. When that fails, and if I am pressed, I will tell the truth "as gently as possible". But for me, with my somewhat limited social skills, this invariably makes matters much worse. I'm sorry to say your bum does look quite big in that dress. And there goes another potential friend. I'm not good at this....

You just have to stop thinking of talking to people as a method for conveying factual information and think of it as method for getting an outcome that you want. Sometimes conveying factual information happens to serve that aim, but not necessarily. So, in the relatively trivial example of a wife/girlfriend/partner asking "does my bum look big in this?" don't ask yourself "what answer correctly reflects the empirical evidence?". Ask yourself: "what outcome do I want and what answer is most likely to achieve that outcome?".

[Pattern-chaser]

It's the decision to lie ("dissemble") that bothers me. In such circumstances, I try to avoid or ignore the question, usually with great and obvious awkwardness. When that fails, and if I am pressed, I will tell the truth "as gently as possible". But for me, with my somewhat limited social skills, this invariably makes matters much worse. I'm sorry to say your bum does look quite big in that dress. And there goes another potential friend. I'm not good at this....

You just have to stop thinking of talking to people as a method for conveying factual information and think of it as method for getting an outcome that you want. Sometimes conveying factual information happens to serve that aim, but not necessarily. So, in the relatively trivial example of a wife/girlfriend/partner asking "does my bum look big in this?" don't ask yourself "what answer correctly reflects the empirical evidence?". Ask yourself: "what outcome do I want and what answer is most likely to achieve that outcome?".

For myself, it's not factual information that I'm focussing on. Social interactions rarely have any significant connection to facts! But even social interactions, interspersed though they are with neurotypical traps and deceptions, still have something to do with honesty. But your suggestion is a sort of doublethink? Don't focus on honesty, but consider words to be a means to an end? I can't bring myself to do that, I'm afraid. That's why I am a poor example of humanity in this regard.

President Trump (or PM Johnson!) would be appalled to hear what I have to say. They are past masters of the art you describe, happy to say whatever gets them what they want (more for themselves and their billionaire cronies). The truth has no meaning for them, and I wonder, if one should dedicate oneself to the practice you suggest, whether that would result in a further devaluation of truth? If we get used to lying to obtain what we want, won't we just carry on like that?

[Steve3007]

But your suggestion is a sort of doublethink?

I wouldn't call it doublethink. Doublethink, as described by Orwell, is holding two opposing views in the mind at once and believing both of them. My proposition wasn't about believing anything. It was simply about how we view the primary purpose of things we say to others.

Don't focus on honesty, but consider words to be a means to an end?

Yes.

President Trump (or PM Johnson!) would be appalled to hear what I have to say. They are past masters of the art you describe, happy to say whatever gets them what they want

Yes. They're particularly good at it.

If we get used to lying to obtain what we want, won't we just carry on like that?

Yes, you're probably right, which is why my suggestion was really a tongue-in-cheek way to discuss the idea without necessarily endorsing it as such.

[Pattern-chaser]

But your suggestion is a sort of doublethink?

I wouldn't call it doublethink. Doublethink, as described by Orwell, is holding two opposing views in the mind at once and believing both of them. My proposition wasn't about believing anything. It was simply about how we view the primary purpose of things we say to others.

Don't focus on honesty, but consider words to be a means to an end?

Yes.

President Trump (or PM Johnson!) would be appalled to hear what I have to say. They are past masters of the art you describe, happy to say whatever gets them what they want

Yes. They're particularly good at it.

If we get used to lying to obtain what we want, won't we just carry on like that?

Yes, you're probably right, which is why my suggestion was really a tongue-in-cheek way to discuss the idea without necessarily endorsing it as such.

I think it's correct to say that skilled social communicators can plot a course through these difficult matters as they arise. I can even see what they're doing, as they do it, and maybe admire their skill. But emulate it? 'Fraid not. But I won't tell outright lies; I can't see how that could be right, for me, at least. How does dishonesty benefit anyone?