Hacker News Reader

Comment by red_admiral | Hacker News Reader

This is pure gold, and still works on the internet to get the specs for PLA tanks:

> If she wants to know something specific, but doesn’t want people to notice her asking questions, she should simply make incorrect statements while in the company of experts. Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men.

View on HN

I heard this one about Linux in the '90s. "If you need help with doing something in Linux, don't ask for help - you'll get ignored. Just boldly state Linux can't do that and you'll have PhDs running to prove you wrong."

It works on hacker news and reddit too, for almost any subject.

The comments that get the most replies often have something slightly wrong and related to hot button topics for this audience.

It also works in reverse, when checking someone's story with an untrusted third party (say a suspect's friend).

Ask them about the story with some facts wrong. If they don't correct you, the story is probably false and they are just confirming anything.

Related, around 2000, knowing which hardware device to buy for any/good Linux compatibility could be difficult.

And even among supported devices, some had better drivers (currently, or imminently), and some hardware itself was buggier than others.

I had access to some kernel developers, but they didn't have time for people's FAQs about current device compatibility.

So what I really did do, at least once, was to narrow down the options on my own, and then (lying) mention, in the enthusiastic manner that people did, that I'd just ordered such-and-such device for Linux.

As you'd guess, but it was still impressive to see happen for real, suddenly there were a number of experts telling me what I should've bought instead.

Question answered. I then admitted my deceit.

AKA Cunningham's law, although it predates linux.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Cunningham#Cunningham's_L...

> Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men.

Observe the importance of phrasing. If this had been put as "men enjoy sharing knowledge, while women are content to let others wallow in ignorance and error", it would have ruffled a great many more feathers.

Sticking to facts ruffles less feathers than adding a charged interpretation to the facts, it's not very surprising.

("X is more likely to correct you" can obviously also have a negatively charged interpretation, which I'm leaving as an exercise to the reader)

I suppose you're right - to highlight the implied, or shall we say, permitted interpretation, I was forced to give a contrasting interpretation, when the source text was indeed purely factual.

X may be more likely to correct you simply because there are more of them, which is different from saying that someone is more likely to correct you "especially if they are X"

It seems to me that the current phrasing ruffled your feathers. (As it did mine, since I'm not sure this is a gendered phenomenon, but the fact is that your version would make me feel better - contray to your thesis).

The alternative phrasing would not, IMHO, have been true. If someone genuinely claimed that, then entirely in the spirit of the original quote, lots of people would chime in.

Well known stratagem : https://changingminds.org/disciplines/warfare/36_strategems/...

You can also use this to get a rough idea of who the most insecure people in the room are and work from there.

What's wrong with correcting someone? It requires some effort from the person doing the correcting, but it facilitates information sharing and lends itself to a more productive environment. If course it can be done in an shooting way, especially if the correcter is a jerk, but most people aren't.

Depends on the context. Correcting impertinent details comes off as pedantic and detracts from the conversation at hand. Like, if you and your partner are talking about how delicious your meal at a restaurant was with another couple, it's not worth correcting your partner over the name of server, or if they got the price wrong by a few bucks. Maybe it's worth correcting your partner if they say you got the halibut when you got the salmon though.

This is absurd. If I mention the name of the server or the price it's because it's supposed to mean something to what I'm saying, as otherwise I wouldn't be mentioning those things at all. If I get them wrong, I would surely appreciate my partner correcting me.

Correcting typos when everyone can see what was supposed to be there may be pedantic as it serves no communication value, but correcting facts?

You have a narrow view on people's reasons for speaking.

My sisters-in-law speak because, if their jaws stop moving for a few minutes, they will suffocate and die. Persiflage is uttered that has no bearing on anything else said.

I don't think "some people out there spill a lot of non-sense out of their mouths" is a valid argument against correcting facts; if anything, it may be an argument for trying to avoid such people if possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com