Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pawn_of_the_Void t1_j0u8sd9 wrote

What a baffling take. When on the receiving end of communication you want to figure out what someone means. Sometimes this means considering if someone could really mean something and then clarifying it with them to be sure. Instantly taking things literally only works with some people and even then they might have a different conception of what a word means. What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end

82

hellosweetpanda t1_j0wei6p wrote

Exactly. I’m in customer service and have gotten things so wrong by just doing what the customer asked for without clarification. AND assuming they know and understand the words / jargon they are using.

15

tomowudi t1_j0wowp4 wrote

The article doesn't unpack this, but I would almost have to ASSUME that the context is about your own ideas, not when examining the ideas of others. Even though the instruction is to "take it literally," my HOPE would be that taking it literally wouldn't be broadly applicable to your actual understanding of someone else's idea, but rather as a process whereby you visualize what the literal expression of that might look like in order to critically think about it.

​

But honestly, its hilarious and ironic to me that the most coherent interpretation of this piece interpreting Rand's intent requires that you do NOT take it literally. LMAO.

7

Pawn_of_the_Void t1_j0xdjcn wrote

Oh. That would make a hell of a lot more sense, although the way it sounds is weird for addressing yourself (specifically the nobody could really mean that part). But right context would suggest it is meant to be internal, or at least the blog writer is suggesting using it on oneself.

In that sense it does make sense to explore what the things you think about your own beliefs really do mean. Feel a bit silly now haha

1

tomowudi t1_j0zt4t6 wrote

No need to feel silly - who can really say if this interpretation of it is correct beside the writer themself?

​

I think your interpretation is valid - just because mine might make more sense, it isn't really the common one if you look through this thread, and so it may be that the writer really did have that baffling take. *shrugs*

2

InspectorG-007 t1_j0wvrxe wrote

I think I can sum it up: walk the talk.

Does this make me some kind of Minimalist Philosopher?

6

iiioiia t1_j0y8npu wrote

> Instantly taking things literally

When you say "instantly", do you mean instantly? Because that word wasn't in the article. Also, the advice was "take ideas

Perhaps if an article isn't exhaustively comprehensive in wording, presuming the worst interpretation of the words is also not optimal.

>>> Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.

My reading of it was ~"don't be generous and assume that bad sounding ideas aren't actually intended other than they are stated', which based on my observations of the ambiguous manner in which people speak, is sound advice.

> What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end

Well you've given a fine demonstration here of ensuring that your understanding is perfect before passing judgment.

1

bildramer t1_j0udbkq wrote

>What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end

That's what she's saying. You'd know that if you actually did it.

−20

Pawn_of_the_Void t1_j0uevzq wrote

No it isn't. She said to take it literally. Not to assume that no one could possibly mean that. Which, to be fair, one shouldn't just assume but double check perhaps but that was not the suggestion made.

15

iiioiia t1_j0y8rov wrote

> Which, to be fair, one shouldn't just assume but double check

And if one does not have access to the author to double check, what is then optimal behavior?

1