Basic misunderstanding on object creation

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 06:33 am, Ned Batchelder wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-4, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 13/05/2015 19:42, andrew cooke wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 13:37:23 UTC-3, Terry Reedy  wrote:
>> >> On 5/13/2015 9:25 AM, andrew cooke wrote:
[...]
>> >>   > Did something change,
>> >>
>> >> Obviously yes.
>> >
>> > thanks, but why does someone on this group always have to be a dick and
>> > make some smart-assed comment like this?
>> 
>> Please don't bother asking again after that response, especially to
>> somebody with the stature of Terry Reedy.
>> 
> 
> To my ears, "Obviously yes" is a pedantic smart-ass comment.  It added
> nothing to the answer, other than to point out that the question was
> obvious. Essentially, it said, "you are silly."  I don't think it's
> unreasonable to expect the regulars here to be able to answer politely.

I don't think "Obviously yes" is necessarily intended to be rude, although
it can be read that way. "Obviously yes" goes without saying, just as "Did
something change?" goes without saying. Obviously something changed, and
just as obviously it should be obvious that it changed.

(Ooh, recursive obviousness...)


In face to face communication, a response like "Obviously yes" could be said
with a gentle tone and a smile, or it could be said with a tone that
implies an unstated "dumbarse" following. In email, it is very hard to
avoid coming across as the second without the explicit use of a smiley.


[puts on amateur headology hat to explain the sociology happening here]

I think what some people may be missing is that Andrew's question "Has
something changed?" isn't an actual question about whether something has
changed. It's more of a rhetorical question inviting validation:

"I can see something has changed, but I'm unwilling to come right out and
say so because I might be wrong, or because I'm not assertive, or because
I've been taught not to jump to conclusions (especially on technical
forums), and so I'm posing this as a question and looking for confirmation
of what I can actually see with my own eyes."

In which case, the answer being looked for is along the lines "Correct,
things changed in version <whatever>". An answer like "Obviously yes"
implies "dumb insolence" from an authority figure:

(1) It's dumb insolence because we're expected to understand the question as
a rhetorical device, not an actual question. Of course Andrew can see that
something has changed, he's not an idiot. Since Terry isn't an idiot,
presumably he knows that too, so for him to take the question literally
implies that he sees Andrew as an idiot.

(2) Terry is the authority figure here because Andrew is asking for help.
That makes Andrew the low status individual in this interaction, and Terry
is giving the help, which gives him the power in the interaction.

(This is especially annoying because normally dumb insolence is one of the
few ways that people of low status can fight back against those of high
status: by following the letter of the given instructions and treating
statements and questions literally.)

Note that many of the interactions above are based on getting into the other
person's head and inferring their state of mind. Andrew assumes that Terry
knows that his question wasn't intended literally; Andrew assumes that if
Terry does take it literally, it is because Terry intends the answer to be
a put down. (Terry confirms that with his response of "To remind people to
ask the question they want answered".) But such inferences aren't reliable
in the absence of non-verbal clues such as body language and tone of voice.


> I certainly don't think Andrew's behavior in this thread is cause for
> asking him not to return.  I also don't think "people with stature"
> should be allowed to behave in ways that others would not be allowed.
> And how are newcomers expected to identify "people with stature"?

Well *obviously* they're the ones acting like dicks without being called out
on it :-)


> Email can be a harsh medium, lacking social cues that can soften
> interchanges in other arenas.  We all have to try hard to be kind to
> each other.  And yes, I expect more of the regulars than I do of
> people new to the list.  The regulars set the tone.  They are the
> hosts here, and should be doing what they can to make new people
> feel welcome.

I agree with that. It takes two to be offended: one to give offense, and one
to take it. Nobody can force you to be offended. Either Tim or Terry could
have refused to take offense.

Instead of asking a rhetorical question about people acting like dicks,
Andrew could have thought "Terry's response sounds a bit dickish, but he
probably didn't mean it to come across as rude"; instead of defending his
choice of words in a patronising tone Terry could have said "Hmmm, yes my
response did make me sound a bit rude, but that wasn't intended".

(Unless of course it was intended to be rude. But perhaps that is too
obvious to need saying.) *wink*




-- 
Steven