many links make a post

[jinian]

(Hi! I disappeared halfway through IBARW! I am still alive, and here are the links I've been squirrelling away.)

1. On being literal, which I am (sometimes to the point of problems):
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/aspergers-diary/200811/joe-and-the-mega-sized-smoothie-language-and-aspergers
(from supergee, I think)

2. On government-organized health care:
http://libertango.livejournal.com/357829.html
from ?

3. Katamari goodness at Boingboing
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/29/katamari-damacy-wedd.html
(needs more cowbear)

4. The stereotype of the fat woman speaks:
http://clawfoot.livejournal.com/896283.html

5. Privilege quiz result:
Y .................................................................................. (+35)
N ...............................................
Some interesting comments at link.

6. Dear NSF,
Learn to do a mail merge already. (m_pig can help!) I do not need to apply for the GRFP again this year because I AM ALREADY AWESOME KTHX.
Love,
K.

7. http://justinelarbalestier.com/blog/2009/08/06/the-new-cover/
YAY.

8. http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/05/21/human-interaction-as-chemistry/
Wonderful science-promotion video from the EU.

9. http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-letter-to-john-c-wright.html
A little overwritten, perhaps, which is what I thought of Vellum, but it picks up partway through, which is not.

10. New favorite nonsensical/menacing web command (from Picasa): Sign in to like this photo.

Comments

[marzipan-pig.livejournal.com]

The average person [...] tends to expect a lot of subtext in what is being said, and frequently imbue[s?] their speech with a lot of subtext. This can be infuriating for a person [...] who tend[s] not to expect subtext, struggle[s] to decode it when it's there, and certainly [doesn't] care to apply it in their speech if they don't have to.

I love how the author of this piece seems to apply intentionality to 'the average person' in our expectations and what we imbue our speech with. :) It's not like I'm doing it on purpose, it just happens that way!

Thank you, this was a good summary of pretty much Everything That Can Go Wrong in communication situations b/w me and a subset of my friends, including at times you.

[katybeth]

I love how the author of this piece seems to apply intentionality to 'the average person' in our expectations and what we imbue our speech with. :) It's not like I'm doing it on purpose, it just happens that way!

*smirk*

I too liked this article. Of course, my reaction to the smoothie scenario was, "If he's really dehydrated, he shouldn't be getting a smoothie!"

[marzipan-pig.livejournal.com]

I got all caught up in imagining him at the 7-11 by my friend's house and how I walk by there a lot and how really it's a Slurpee not a smoothie and why is this guy talking all formal and weird at the 7-11 anyway?

[hattifattener]

I kept getting hung up on that too. "Shouldn't he be getting something other than a smoothie? Is that what the answer is going to hinge on? Is this going to be on the final?"

[jinian.livejournal.com]

I noticed the dehydration issue, but was able to disengage and move past it without being too perseverant. :)

(Also maybe I just have no faith in Gatorade? Because a Slurpee doesn't seem too different to me.)

[katybeth]

Ah, see, a smoothie to me means a fruit smoothie -- thick and fruity like from Jamba Juice (or my blender). Quite possibly the author intended it to mean something more like a 7-11 Slurpee, which IIRC is mostly sugar water. And while I know people use heavily sugared drinks to quench thirst, when I know I'm *dehydrated* (as opposed to just thirsty) I try to stay away from them, and go with water, or watered-down Gatorade.

Me, literal?

[hattifattener]

Heh, whereas I don't read that sentence as ascribing intentionality. The "expecting subtext" is borderline, perhaps, but the "imbuing" isn't something I'd ascribe intent to.

But then, I have a different analysis of most of the examples in the article. Sure, it's clear to me that the dollar-smoothie example is something that would be called intentional, and the commemorative-cup example is something that would be called unintentional, but it has nothing to do with "how you phrase the question" — the questions are phrased the same! I think the deciding factor has more to do with cultural context. We know that spending money is a cost, a generally undesirable activity which you do consciously in order to reach some goal; receiving a commemorative cup is a more passive activity. That's the difference I perceive between those two scenarios.

(And I think the kid-hitting-the-policeman example is pretty weird. If I hit a policeman because I was confused and he was handling me in a way I didn't like, I don't think the law would treat it as an accident. Sure, it's not premeditated, but it's conscious and voluntary.)

[marzipan-pig.livejournal.com]

I think an adult telling a kid 'it was an accident' is a way to say 'we know you didn't really mean it'. Except most kids are pretty literal (not just kids with Asperger's) so I'm not sure that's a good example in any case.

[katybeth]

Agreed.

[eub.livejournal.com]

I think the deciding factor has more to do with cultural context. We know that spending money is a cost, a generally undesirable activity which you do consciously in order to reach some goal; receiving a commemorative cup is a more passive activity.

I think that's in play here, that in "did Joe intentionally pay an extra dollar" we know from context that the questioner is not asking whether that was his goal; paying money is assumed never to be a goal in itself.

Are you proposing that whether we interpret "intention" as goal-seeking is the distinction between our handling of the two scenarios? I.e. is the reason you'd say no to "did Joe intentionally get the cup" that you're answering whether the cup was a goal? (And you answer under that interpretation because, you know, some people could be commemorative-cup seekers (whereas no people are money shedders).)

It could be, but that interpretation isn't necessary to get to the "no" for the cup scenario. I can dismiss commemorative-cup seekers as a myth, and still think he didn't intentionally get the cup, because he didn't change his initial offer, $X for smoothie. In the other scenario, he did change his offer, to $X+1 for smoothie, and that change is intentional.

So very like what you're saying, but maybe applying the cultural contest in a different place. Or maybe you're saying the same.

(If a commemorative cup is accepted to have negative value, for the disposal fee and ritual atonement, then in that scenario Joe changed his offer in accepting it. But that's not what the assumptions are here.)

[jinian.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons I liked the article is that I was so firmly in the "no, intentional means intentional" camp in the Slurpee example. It was very absolute for me, and I had to struggle to see it another way, which I felt reluctant to do since I was clearly right!

The whole book the police-hitting example is from is a little weird, but I thought that was a good example of something that is not at all true that people nonetheless might say socially. (In this case, they would only say it if they were trying to oversimplify in an unproductive and stupid way, but it's somewhat believable.) Did you read it while I had it from the library?