*screams*

[conuly]

If you make a factual error, and somebody corrects you, it's not necessarily because they don't have a sense of humor, or because they don't like you. It could very easily be simply because you. are. wrong.

And there doesn't have to be any other reason than that! No, I'm not taking things too seriously. I don't like to be wrong. If I spell something wrong, I want to be told so that I don't keep making the same stupid mistake. If I say, erroneously, that educated people used to believe that the world was flat, then I expect to be corrected so I'll stop saying things that are wrong. (Columbus not only failed to prove that the world was round, he wasn't expected to. That had been proven back in ancient Greece.)

And there doesn't have to be any other reason than that people shouldn't say things that are wrong. The next person to come up and randomly ask me "why do you care?" when they or somebody else makes some huge-ass mistake is going to get smacked, I swear. I care because I. Don't. Like. Things. Being. Wrong. Period, end of story, I don't need another reason, and if you had any self-respect you'd endeavor not to make stupid mistakes.

This, of course, only applies to matters of fact, not matters of opinion. For example, gaol isn't a stupid spelling mistake for jail, it's an actual spelling in many places. Okay, my opinion is that it's a stupid spelling, but so are many things in the English orthography. I try not to pay them much heed.

Comments

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

RIGHT ON!!! I feel exactly the same way, and it hurts my feelings when friends get pissed off at me for being right when they are wrong.

[conuly]

*passes along hugs and kittens*

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I've learned to my cost that, even in a forum theoretically dedicated to learned discussion, the exchange of factual information may be of secondary or even tertiary importance to a lot of posters. It's like when someone asks, "How are you?" and you answer, "Fine, and you?" The real point is to express respect and concern for another person; any resemblance to an exchange of factual information is superficial.

Unfortunately, this seems characteristic of linguaphiles. Every day, I see people reply to factual questions with vapid affirmation or rank speculation when they could quite easily look up the correct answer in an online reference. Given the widespread tolerance of this behaviour, I can only conclude that, to many people, the right answer is irrelevant. What matters to them is that people who think languages are neat are socialising and chatting about their hobby.

When that's the attitude, being correct is not justification in itself. You're also expected to be friendly, non-judgemental, and indulgent. I've got limited patience for those expectations and, as a result, I've been savaged by self-righteous posters several times over the past few months. It doesn't bother me, though, as long as there are still enough people around who actually care about getting the right answer.

[conuly]

To be fair, this wasn't entirely prompted by my conversation in linguaphiles.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you can find that attitude anywhere. People like to talk and often the fact that they're talking and someone else is listening is more important to all concerned than anything that's being said. I would've made my life a little easier if I'd learned that about, oh, I dunno, twenty years earlier or so.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

Where? Where?

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

I care and I'm happy people like you are about -- thanks!

[griphus.livejournal.com]

Is this a cue to post a whole bunch of ontological-theory links under the header "everything you know is wrong" ? ;)

[conuly]

No, but go for it.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I have twice recently corrected people on LiveJournal, both about things related to my majors in college by people who focused in other areas. They both took it quite well, which isn't surprising in my group of friends. I was recently corrected by you, and I tried to take it well. I generally like to be corrected, although I have somewhat mixed feelings when it starts to get tangled with disability issues. And I can't always even tell what is a mistake as I always might make when I get careless and what is a mistake due to things going on in my brain that I'm a bit touchy about, but can't really expect other people to understand, much less take into account, and I certainly shouldn't turn into their problem.

But I do think correcting people is generally a good idea. Especially if they don't seem to know, rather than just messed up. Or if it's important. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and I think misinformation is bad.

Although sometimes the slope between fact and opinion gets slippery. There are a lot of jargon terms in psychology that have become slang in English or general use in English, but not all that surprisingly, the general English gets them wrong. So, I always feel a bit touchy when I see terms like "anal" (generally used to mean "anal-retentive" which would be an acceptable shortening except that "retentive" means except in the opposite direction, so "anal" has the opposite meaning of what most people think it has... except that if most people think it has the opposite meaning, then does it?), "cognitive dissonance", "negative reinforcement", and even things like "classical conditioning" or "Pavlovian conditioning" but usually if the last example is wrong, I can safely say it is just wrong (people tend to use it when they mean "operant conditioning" which Skinner did, the rewards and punishment sort of conditioning).

And uh, now I'm just babbling because I really do like psych. :)

[conuly]

Well, I occasionally remember DON'T CORRECT PEOPLE, but usually my lust to be correct, combined with my desire to share what I know, and my thrill at being a show-off takes control.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Well, I was trying to agree with you that correcting people is a good thing. I just also wanted to explain why my actions aren't always consistent with this. I get touchy when my sore spots get hit. And I spent years taking pride in my ability to use language. I got a BS in technical writing. I do creative writing, some of which has been greatly appreciated by people for reasons beyond just that I wrote it. And then one day my vocabulary got scrambled. I spent a year trying to recover my ability to speak and to sort out the mistakes and put things back properly. And I still find myself now and then getting things wrong for reasons that feel related. And I'm touchy about it. But I don't think it's fair for me to direct that at other people. It's just that I do sometimes anyway, because I'm not perfect. But I do agree with you.

Although if I knew a person had particular issues, then I'd modify my behavior toward that person. I believe in lots of general default ways of behaving, but flexibility to accomodate individuals when you can make reasonable accomodations. That said - do keep correcting me. I want to get things as fixed as possible. And I will try to be polite, and I do appreciate it, even when I don't show it.

[xiggaroo.livejournal.com]

You also don't have to correct people *every* time they're wrong. Being wrong SOMETIMES is a part of being, you know, a person. Even if said person doesn't like to admit when they're wrong. When you get into the habit of ALWAYS correcting mistakes people make, it can really cloud the relationship between the two people and make it hard for the person who is always wrong to be around the person who is always right. Because they feel like a fucking moron, even if they aren't.

I understand you don't like to be wrong, but no one has to be right 100% of the time. And really, you can have your own goals (like being right all the time), but trying to impose that on the people around you is sort of foolish. It's setting yourself up to be very disappointed (because most people you'll find AREN'T always right), and it also makes for a very hard relationship.

I guess maybe sometimes it's good to look at things from a different perspective, right...?

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

Sometimes correcting a joke is a bad idea. I saw the bit from today, and the comment was too flippant, and deserved some correction. But I know that's not the only point behind this particular rant of yours. The thing is, jokes aren't necessarily the point in themselves. Sometimes the humor is the point. I recall once when you corrected a quote I typed up, which was about the flat earth thing, actually; you pointed out that way back when, they didn't truly believe the earth was flat, but that fact wasn't why I posted my quote. The way you said it, my initial reaction was that you either didn't get the joke or thought I was dumb to fall for the old myth--but I didn't actually believe it of you, because I knew then as now that you just want things to be correct. If you want to avoid that, however, preface the correction with, "That is amusing, but..." and you won't sound too blunt.

Though, if you want to be blunt, go right ahead. Blunt is necessary sometimes. Some people just can't accept anything else.

[pne.livejournal.com]

(Columbus not only failed to prove that the world was round, he wasn't expected to. That had been proven back in ancient Greece.)

That seems like a non sequitur to me, though. The Ancient Greeks knew a lot of stuff that got lost during the Middle Ages, from what I've heard.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Well, I do know that scientists in medieval Spain ca. 1200 knew the earth was round, so it's doubtful that by 1492 they had forgotten. How they arrived at the knowledge, I don't know. Just that Columbus's theory wasn't some crackpot thing that people would never have imagined; why would King Fernando and Queen Isabel have given him three big ships and a whole bunch of sailors, if they thought he was going to fall off the edge of the world?

It's an amusing story and useful for parables, but not true. And in case anyone cares, both the Chevy Nova and Ford Pinto sold very well in Latin America, thankyouverymuch.

[conuly]

Criminals. The sailors were criminals. Weren't they?

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

I think what can be irksome is when you have nothing to say BUT a correction. I once posted something with a mispelling and your entire comment was the correct spelling. I understood that you were just correcting my error, but part of me couldn't help think "clearly, she doesn't care to comment except when I'm wrong about something."

Which I suppose was also erroneous, but I can see why that sort of thing bothers people.

[polydad.livejournal.com]

The next person to come up and randomly ask me "why do you care?" when they or somebody else makes some huge-ass mistake is going to get smacked, I swear.

Bad move; you'll attract every masochist on the net.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

Bad move? you're prejudiced against masochists? oh noes drama!

*bends over* "Please correct this worm harshly, Mistress Conuly!"

[polydad.livejournal.com]

Bad move? you're prejudiced against masochists?

No, as a sadist, I'm highly in *favor* of masochists. I have no idea about Conuly's tastes or preferences in this regard, however.

best,

Joel. Who didn't think worms had sophisticated enough nervous systems to profit from correction.

[morganne13.livejournal.com]

When I read your post I was in total agreement, but then a couple commentators made good points...

Do you correct factual information just when the factual information is the point, or do you correct it also when it doesn't matter if its factual or not for the point of the conversation/thread?

But when the point is facts and they're getting pissy over being corrected or you correct spelling as a sidenote and do it as nicely as is appropriate to the conversation... GO YOU!

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

RIGHT ON!!! I feel exactly the same way, and it hurts my feelings when friends get pissed off at me for being right when they are wrong.

[conuly]

*passes along hugs and kittens*

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I've learned to my cost that, even in a forum theoretically dedicated to learned discussion, the exchange of factual information may be of secondary or even tertiary importance to a lot of posters. It's like when someone asks, "How are you?" and you answer, "Fine, and you?" The real point is to express respect and concern for another person; any resemblance to an exchange of factual information is superficial.

Unfortunately, this seems characteristic of linguaphiles. Every day, I see people reply to factual questions with vapid affirmation or rank speculation when they could quite easily look up the correct answer in an online reference. Given the widespread tolerance of this behaviour, I can only conclude that, to many people, the right answer is irrelevant. What matters to them is that people who think languages are neat are socialising and chatting about their hobby.

When that's the attitude, being correct is not justification in itself. You're also expected to be friendly, non-judgemental, and indulgent. I've got limited patience for those expectations and, as a result, I've been savaged by self-righteous posters several times over the past few months. It doesn't bother me, though, as long as there are still enough people around who actually care about getting the right answer.

[conuly]

To be fair, this wasn't entirely prompted by my conversation in linguaphiles.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you can find that attitude anywhere. People like to talk and often the fact that they're talking and someone else is listening is more important to all concerned than anything that's being said. I would've made my life a little easier if I'd learned that about, oh, I dunno, twenty years earlier or so.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

Where? Where?

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

I care and I'm happy people like you are about -- thanks!

[griphus.livejournal.com]

Is this a cue to post a whole bunch of ontological-theory links under the header "everything you know is wrong" ? ;)

[conuly]

No, but go for it.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I have twice recently corrected people on LiveJournal, both about things related to my majors in college by people who focused in other areas. They both took it quite well, which isn't surprising in my group of friends. I was recently corrected by you, and I tried to take it well. I generally like to be corrected, although I have somewhat mixed feelings when it starts to get tangled with disability issues. And I can't always even tell what is a mistake as I always might make when I get careless and what is a mistake due to things going on in my brain that I'm a bit touchy about, but can't really expect other people to understand, much less take into account, and I certainly shouldn't turn into their problem.

But I do think correcting people is generally a good idea. Especially if they don't seem to know, rather than just messed up. Or if it's important. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and I think misinformation is bad.

Although sometimes the slope between fact and opinion gets slippery. There are a lot of jargon terms in psychology that have become slang in English or general use in English, but not all that surprisingly, the general English gets them wrong. So, I always feel a bit touchy when I see terms like "anal" (generally used to mean "anal-retentive" which would be an acceptable shortening except that "retentive" means except in the opposite direction, so "anal" has the opposite meaning of what most people think it has... except that if most people think it has the opposite meaning, then does it?), "cognitive dissonance", "negative reinforcement", and even things like "classical conditioning" or "Pavlovian conditioning" but usually if the last example is wrong, I can safely say it is just wrong (people tend to use it when they mean "operant conditioning" which Skinner did, the rewards and punishment sort of conditioning).

And uh, now I'm just babbling because I really do like psych. :)

[conuly]

Well, I occasionally remember DON'T CORRECT PEOPLE, but usually my lust to be correct, combined with my desire to share what I know, and my thrill at being a show-off takes control.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Well, I was trying to agree with you that correcting people is a good thing. I just also wanted to explain why my actions aren't always consistent with this. I get touchy when my sore spots get hit. And I spent years taking pride in my ability to use language. I got a BS in technical writing. I do creative writing, some of which has been greatly appreciated by people for reasons beyond just that I wrote it. And then one day my vocabulary got scrambled. I spent a year trying to recover my ability to speak and to sort out the mistakes and put things back properly. And I still find myself now and then getting things wrong for reasons that feel related. And I'm touchy about it. But I don't think it's fair for me to direct that at other people. It's just that I do sometimes anyway, because I'm not perfect. But I do agree with you.

Although if I knew a person had particular issues, then I'd modify my behavior toward that person. I believe in lots of general default ways of behaving, but flexibility to accomodate individuals when you can make reasonable accomodations. That said - do keep correcting me. I want to get things as fixed as possible. And I will try to be polite, and I do appreciate it, even when I don't show it.

[xiggaroo.livejournal.com]

You also don't have to correct people *every* time they're wrong. Being wrong SOMETIMES is a part of being, you know, a person. Even if said person doesn't like to admit when they're wrong. When you get into the habit of ALWAYS correcting mistakes people make, it can really cloud the relationship between the two people and make it hard for the person who is always wrong to be around the person who is always right. Because they feel like a fucking moron, even if they aren't.

I understand you don't like to be wrong, but no one has to be right 100% of the time. And really, you can have your own goals (like being right all the time), but trying to impose that on the people around you is sort of foolish. It's setting yourself up to be very disappointed (because most people you'll find AREN'T always right), and it also makes for a very hard relationship.

I guess maybe sometimes it's good to look at things from a different perspective, right...?

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

Sometimes correcting a joke is a bad idea. I saw the bit from today, and the comment was too flippant, and deserved some correction. But I know that's not the only point behind this particular rant of yours. The thing is, jokes aren't necessarily the point in themselves. Sometimes the humor is the point. I recall once when you corrected a quote I typed up, which was about the flat earth thing, actually; you pointed out that way back when, they didn't truly believe the earth was flat, but that fact wasn't why I posted my quote. The way you said it, my initial reaction was that you either didn't get the joke or thought I was dumb to fall for the old myth--but I didn't actually believe it of you, because I knew then as now that you just want things to be correct. If you want to avoid that, however, preface the correction with, "That is amusing, but..." and you won't sound too blunt.

Though, if you want to be blunt, go right ahead. Blunt is necessary sometimes. Some people just can't accept anything else.

[pne.livejournal.com]

(Columbus not only failed to prove that the world was round, he wasn't expected to. That had been proven back in ancient Greece.)

That seems like a non sequitur to me, though. The Ancient Greeks knew a lot of stuff that got lost during the Middle Ages, from what I've heard.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Well, I do know that scientists in medieval Spain ca. 1200 knew the earth was round, so it's doubtful that by 1492 they had forgotten. How they arrived at the knowledge, I don't know. Just that Columbus's theory wasn't some crackpot thing that people would never have imagined; why would King Fernando and Queen Isabel have given him three big ships and a whole bunch of sailors, if they thought he was going to fall off the edge of the world?

It's an amusing story and useful for parables, but not true. And in case anyone cares, both the Chevy Nova and Ford Pinto sold very well in Latin America, thankyouverymuch.

[conuly]

Criminals. The sailors were criminals. Weren't they?

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

I think what can be irksome is when you have nothing to say BUT a correction. I once posted something with a mispelling and your entire comment was the correct spelling. I understood that you were just correcting my error, but part of me couldn't help think "clearly, she doesn't care to comment except when I'm wrong about something."

Which I suppose was also erroneous, but I can see why that sort of thing bothers people.

[polydad.livejournal.com]

The next person to come up and randomly ask me "why do you care?" when they or somebody else makes some huge-ass mistake is going to get smacked, I swear.

Bad move; you'll attract every masochist on the net.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

Bad move? you're prejudiced against masochists? oh noes drama!

*bends over* "Please correct this worm harshly, Mistress Conuly!"

[polydad.livejournal.com]

Bad move? you're prejudiced against masochists?

No, as a sadist, I'm highly in *favor* of masochists. I have no idea about Conuly's tastes or preferences in this regard, however.

best,

Joel. Who didn't think worms had sophisticated enough nervous systems to profit from correction.

[morganne13.livejournal.com]

When I read your post I was in total agreement, but then a couple commentators made good points...

Do you correct factual information just when the factual information is the point, or do you correct it also when it doesn't matter if its factual or not for the point of the conversation/thread?

But when the point is facts and they're getting pissy over being corrected or you correct spelling as a sidenote and do it as nicely as is appropriate to the conversation... GO YOU!