Another Misplaced Note about Carl Franklin and Chris Sells
What both Carl Franklin and Chris Sells have in common in the rasx() context is that they both misunderstood my “tone” in the emails I sent to them. I’m inspired to talk about this now (since this shit did happen over a year ago) because of the Wired article by Stephen Leahy, “ The Secret Cause of Flame Wars.” He writes:
At the same time, those reading messages unconsciously interpret them based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. Despite this, the research subjects thought they accurately interpreted the messages nine out of 10 times.
The reason for this is egocentrism, or the difficulty some people have detaching themselves from their own perspective, says Epley. In other words, people aren’t that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person’s perspective.
What floors me is the use of the word “egocentrism” in a Wired article. It seems like these young, lime-green hipsters are getting seeing the positive “side” of being Old fashioned… They use the word like egocentrism is not natural which is commendable. But perhaps my “current mood” is misinterpreting them… Back to Carl and Chris: we never really got into a flame war because we don’t have time for it. And speaking for me, there is no reward in ‘defeating’ someone in a flame war. What? Carl or Chris will spit out real fast that Bryan is “smart guy” and move on… what kind of reward is that? Send me some business or send me nothing. So they quite obligingly send me nothing. Okay, Chris did get me on the team that reviewed his next Windows Forms book… that was cool… I didn’t do very much…
So the next few bullets summarize the known ‘zones’ of misunderstanding:* My tone is formal out of respect for myself and others—in that order. The priority is for me because one does not presume what another (stranger) needs. What is not needed here is to invest in the development a fictional character in place of “the real me” in order make sure others find pleasure when they meet me. I am not an entertainer. I respect their craft and leave it to the professionals.
- When you find quotes in my words, it is part of a writing style of consciousness. It demonstrates a consciousness of the words themselves—and should remind the reader that are reading words—not my mind. It shows that there are words definitely not used by me in the current context (these are in “double quotes”) and there are words probably not used by the reader in the rasx() context (these are in ‘single quotes’). It would not surprise me to find that the egocentric interpretation of my use of quotes is related to being sarcastic and/or patronizing.
- Whenever a question mark appears in anyone’s “modern English” text, the suspicion of derision is aroused. Don’t you think?
- The use of the exclamation mark is almost always seen as an expression of anger. I often use it for humor. Bad move!
My purpose attempt to express some kind of formal English—especially in the world of “computer science”—is to pass the information without the entertainment benefit of proprietary cartoon characters based on synthetic personalities. These synthetic personalities are manufactured for a theoretical “common marketplace.” The assertion here is that this sort of commons does not exist and therefore no high-energy, synthetic characters should be constructed for it.
My formalism is my attempt to respect diversity in the audience. I get tired of hearing all people all over the world trying to talk like a Reagan-era “valley girl” from Encino, California. I also get tired of the same impersonation of fictitious thugs from Compton, California. I don’t want to be tired and formless.
It is fascinating how writers of language for machines can spot syntax and other structural errors quickly but often fail to extend that ability to human languages (this is based on the assumption that English is language designed for humans).
Microsoft employee David Wang has similar formalism problems. In the “about me” section of his Blog he writes:
And before we get to far... let me first apologize and explain for my tone. When writing, I have a natural tendency to communicate with a tone that is logical, bordering on pedantic, and when you combine that with Q&A... I believe that the resulting message can be construed negatively. At least, that is what history has told me. But rest assured, I am NOT trying to be mean-spirited; I am just trying to help by providing information that I know.
This guy is literally addressing the insecurities inherit in his “technical” audience. Let me say quite informally, that I see no reward in captivating a bunch of insecure “friends” just to be distracted from productive solitude and authentic human intimacy with confident, stable people. Dave, dude, don’t waste your time!