Assertions, challenges, and polite discourse

[r0g]

Ben Finney wrote:
> In fairness, the “No” was in response, not to an explicit question, but
> to an assertion.
> 
> Every assertion expressed, though, implies the question “is this
> assertion true?”. It was that question that was answered “No” (followed
> by an explanation of why the assertion was not true).
> 


That's a fair point I had never really considered. I'd wouldn't have
been nearly as upset if you'd started your sentence with AssertionError :)


> People sometimes get upset — on an immediate, irrational level — when
> their assertions are challenged. There's no denying that emotions
> entangle our discourse, and our interpretation of the discourse of
> others.


That's truer than most people appreciate, to the extent that it's a good
idea to tread very lightly when correcting strangers if you want
rational discourse to continue. Even small amounts of negativity
commonly provoke large threat responses in people which in turn inhibit
rational thinking... Have a watch of this Google Tech Talk if you have
time, it's really quite enlightening...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M



> 
> That's not something I'd ever want to eradicate. I ask only that, rather
> than decrying that assertions be challenged per se, the challenge be
> assessed to see whether it's valid.
> 


Well I think sometimes, for the sake of expediency and overall
pleasantness, it's better to let the smaller things go: and if you just
can't let them go then at least try and issue corrections in a friendly
manner rather than a cold or pious one. As this thread is demonstrating
endless checking of every detail of every assertion leads to very long
execution times and on balance I'm not sure we benefit from these extra
digits of precision.

Roger.