1081
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/1006130
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/aboringdystopia by /u/Last_Salad_5080 on 2023-10-03 14:21:04.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
1081 points (97.7% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9771 readers
451 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I got in trouble for correcting other kids that didn’t grasp phonics. In first grade. I was a little asshole but I was just trying to help. Also it was painful as hell.
Hooked on phonics worked for me.
... I'm actually not cracking a joke. One of the few memories I have from when I was very young (under maybe 6 or so) was going through hooked on phonics material.
In my college years, while not focused on language or communication (I'm an IT technician, specializing in computer networking) I became obsessed with the English language and it's been a long term study for me. I'm still learning new things all the time despite English being my only fluent language. The nuances of when to use what terms despite each term being roughly equivalent (such as: what is the difference is between "affect" and "effect"), and other such oddities and specifics. College didn't really tell me anything new about the language I speak, but dealing with everyone's terrible use of the language, and being misunderstood many times because of poor structure or word selection caused me to want to step up so I can reduce how many follow ups I have to deal with to clarify myself.
I find most people are almost unnecessarily terse, leaving out important context that they think is obvious and assume that everyone who receives their message will make the same observation, when it's not an obvious thing at all to many; this assumption is extremely common and often it's not something that even crosses into the minds of those doing it. Such assumptions often lead to misunderstandings and are the basis of more than a few ha ha funny jokes in sitcoms, all of which I find rather cringe.
As a society, we abuse language severely. By extension, otherwise mundane situations can turn hazardous or even lethal if a misunderstanding happens; and many leave a lot of the context, and a fundamental understanding of context, to the assumptions of the reader/listener. It's really dumb IMO.
If the literal majority of people are reading at a 6th grade level, the society in which we live should be making efforts to improve that. Bluntly, I shouldn't need to "read between the lines" to understand what you want me to do.
I ran your comment through a word analyzer, and you will be happy to know your text scored at a 12th grade level!
Unfortunately, that means that most Americans will be unable to comprehend what you wrote. Sort of a catch-22 I suppose, although it may provide a natural filtering device to filter out the idiots, I suppose.
Does it top out at 12th grade? Just wondering if there's room for improvement on that tool alone.
Maybe it's an effect of me having English as a 3rd language, but... what nuance? They're two different words.
I've been told that's an aspect of being on the autistic spectrum, that "normal people" will have no trouble picking up on the missing context.
Always sounded to me like an excuse for being sloppy, like maybe the lazies are lowering the "autism" bar too low... but who am I to judge anyone, but a simple chap on the spectrum.
I can usually (about 98% of the time) pick up on the assumed context. I recognise that not everyone does, so I try not to make the assumption. For me that goes back to the curse of knowledge problem more than anything. It makes sense to me because I know the context and underlying information about the matter. I try not to make an assumption that everyone will know that when reading my notes/emails/documentation/etc.
Native English speakers use affect and effect fairly interchangeably, so most don't know the difference because they haven't opened dictionary.com in a decade or more.
no
I found this hilarious to read.
Take it from another would-be English major who found a career in IT infrastructure. We are the ones with the problem over-explaining things because we value having a full information set over being concise. The thing is I agree with you that people are overly terse, or maybe more directly people are unable to process long blocks of information. It's frustrating, because I would rather have it all in one place to reference back to.
But I've found the flip side of that is that in my efforts to ensure there is no possible way to misconstrue my communication, I lose everyone in its length. Yes it would be nice if everyone was able to digest what amounts to a technical manual-cum-email so they have a full understanding. But the reality is that the vast majority of people cannot. They simply shut down and stop reading. Therefore it is my responsibility to adjust my delivery to be most effective for the intended audience. This includes fewer words, more direct points, and less supporting details unless asked for more.
I guess my point is, I see myself in your comment. And I wanted to share that I used to feel that way but time has softened my outlook and opened me to the idea that I'm definitely complicit in the overall lack of understanding by failing to account for my audience.
Look at that, there I go rambling again!
I understand. The way I've taken to structure my messages is to provide the terse summary up front then elaborate as I go, summarize tersely at the end and re-pose any pressing questions. This way the reader can mostly skip the middle of my email and go from the executive summary at the top and forward themselves to the last few sentences and hit reply. If they want more detail, it's all there.
I try to keep away from any overly technical jargon, and kind of "dumb it down" aka, use non-technical language as much as I can while still keeping to the point and being accurate. If they want the technical jargon version, they can ask, but they never do.
I find it helps me since I can go back and reference the information if I need it, or point the client to it and go over it with them later if they ask at a later date.
I don't know if that's something that's possible with your work, but it seems to minimize the follow ups and the end user seems to be happy most of the time. There's always a few that will complain, but I've gotten more compliments on my communication style than anything.