

Why Technical Smart Asses are Technically Dumb Asses - curenote
http://sociosage.tumblr.com/post/14922798020/why-technical-smart-asses-are-technically-dumb-asses

======
noahc
I am torn on this issue. I try not to be like this, but words have meaning.
And if words don't have meaning or have arbitrary meaning then we can't
communicate. Some words have more specific meaning than others.

One thing that drives me absolutely nuts is when people (my girlfriend) use
supposedly to not mean anything. My girlfriend uses it when someone else told
her something. So she might say, "Supposedly, She went into town today to buy
food." and that just means someone told her she went into town.To me this is
an empty meaning and "supposedly" implies that maybe she didn't go into town
or maybe she went into town to meet her lover and not really to buy food.

~~~
eli
Some people believe the dictionary prescribes how words are to be used. Others
believe the dictionary merely captures descriptions of how words are already
being used. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between.

~~~
LukeShu
These aren't so much beliefs of "what dictionaries do", but what they _should_
do. For example, Websters _aims_ to be descriptive, not prescriptive. How much
they succeed is debatable. The point is that this issue isn't solely in the
mind of the reader.

~~~
eli
What would be an example of a prescriptive dictionary? I guess my point is
that all these words came from somewhere else, right? The dictionary editor
isn't sitting there coining new words for things that previously did not have
a name and hoping the stick... right?

~~~
recursive
L'Académie française has published such dictionaries:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise>

------
forgottenpaswrd
For me HE IS the technically dumb ass.

Wow!!, writing in his blog that his friend is a dumb ass because he wants to
be right all the time!! My passive aggressive sensor just goes off scale. He
NEEDS to be right because his internal insecurities so he gets angry with his
friend and then ridicules his friend in his blog.

BTW, his friend is totally right, consistency has nothing to do with self
discipline(discipline means you have to do constant effort against something),
you really do not need that much effort to change something once you integrate
it on a routine, he is the one that does not get it, but is in denial, because
he does not want to be wrong.

~~~
rkon
No, they're both wrong, but his friend misses the more important point: self-
discipline is necessary to alter the status quo, not consistency.

~~~
earbitscom
I believe the more important point was, "Dude, you know what I'm talking
about. Getting to a point of consistency requires discipline, so stop trying
to correct me for the sake of it."

------
AznHisoka
Being consistent means learning new habits. You might require some self
discipline initially, but as time goes along, it becomes a habit and you don't
need as much discipline, especially when you start to see tangible progress.
So I can see why he would be anal about it.

~~~
kenjackson
But what you've described is almost the textbook definition of discipline.

"calm controlled behavior: the ability to behave in a controlled and calm way
even in a difficult or stressful situation"

The pedant was able to create new habits that allowed him to be controlled and
stick to a routine even in the presence of stimuli that would cause him to no
longer exibit this control.

The term consistency, when applied to human behavior, is almost always a form
of discipline -- except when it comes to certain bodily functions... like
heartbeat or going to the bathroom.

~~~
AznHisoka
I think the distinction is between the need to use willpower and our
logical/rational abilities vs. not needing to use it. The Rational Rider vs.
The Elephant/Lizard Brain. When we make something a habit, it just naturally
becomes a normal behavior.

When we need to use discipline, we need to use self control in order to fight
against a natural instinct that's more pleasurable. Of course, there's always
a combination of the 2 that's needed, but habits generally rely on learning
new behaviors that become natural.

~~~
kenjackson
But if you're being pedantic, discipline usually isn't defined with respect to
willpower. It's defined with respect to control.

To be clearer -- consistency and discipline aren't exactly the same, but you
get consistency in human behavior via discipline.

Technically the original poster was correct. What the pedant did required
discipline. The pedant saying that it wasn't discipline was actually not even
technically correct. By attempting to be pedantic he actually said something
that wasn't even technically true.

Now what you're saying is that there is some other behavior that might be
implied by the term discipline, which is a prolonged test of willpower. This
technically is not in any definition of discipline I've seen.

I'd argue that if you're going to be a pedant, you at least need to be right.

~~~
AznHisoka
Self control and willpower goes hand in hand. What else are you using to
control yourself? I'm not sure what definition of discipline you are referring
to, otherwise. In any case if I'm using your definition, then there's no sense
in arguing, the argument wouldn't be interesting anyway.

------
poutine
I believe the term he's looking for is pedantic.

 _pushes glasses up on nose_

~~~
platz
Also known as 'conversationally anal-retentive'.

------
cbs
When I find myself in a situation like this, I say "we're being pedantic, take
a drink".

It works great. It makes us both realize we're acting stupid, and the next day
neither of us is going to write a blog post about how our pedantry didn't line
up with someone else's.

------
jsight
They both seem like they are thinking the same way to me. Both of them are
wrong in some ways (self-discipline != consistency, and consistency alone was
unlikely the key to the weight loss).

See also: <http://www.despair.com/consistency.html>

------
vitalychernobyl
I love that this made it on Hackernews so as to prove the non-techies point!
:-D

He is right too - when dealing with the hard sciences it's most important to
BE RIGHT (it's either a 0 or 1 - and it matters), but when dealing with
relationships it's much more important to BE EMPATHETIC.

If you aren't - you'll be seen as a contrarian/confrontational.

I think we need to practice "being ok with being wrong" when the relationship
matters more than the subject matter. Cheers!

------
mwd_
One common problem I see is that some people tend to turn every conversation
into an adversarial situation because they focus on poking holes in whatever
the other person says. A more pleasant and fruitful way to talk to people is
to try to see things from their perspective -- ask questions instead of saying
"no". Finding common ground and learning from other people is far more
important than ironing out whatever flaws you see in their logic.

------
RyanMcGreal
As a technical person, am I allowed to complain when non-technical people
follow sloppy reasoning to faulty conclusions?

~~~
earbitscom
Shouldn't you complain when anybody does it?

He wasn't saying technical as in technologists, and this isn't West Side
Story. He meant when you're making a technical correction for the sake of it,
being "a technical smart ass". "Non-technical" people do it, too.

------
ryandvm
So... you got into an argument with your friend because he could have just
said "whatever". Or you could have done the same thing.

------
espeed
It's a matter of perspective. Self discipline has a certain connotation and
evokes certain emotions. For some people it may be associated with negative
feelings built up over years of failure.

Maybe your friend realized this and decided to change the game. Thinking about
it in terms of "consistency" instead of the dreaded "self-discipline"
evidently worked for him, and he may be sticking to his guns in the argument
because he doesn't want to fuck up the mental hack that been working so well.

------
jgreer
@AznHisoka hit the nail on the head. It's ironic that the author missed the
bigger picture of what his/her friend was trying to say when that was the
point of his/her post.

------
VikingCoder
Smart ass posts article about how smart asses drive him nuts...

...irony missed.

~~~
vbtemp
My thought exactly -- does the author lack the self-awareness to realize that
he is himself a smart ass?

~~~
dextorious
Do you guys lack the reading-comprehension skills to understand that he talks
about a SPECIFIC kind of smart-ass called a "pedant" which he is not?

~~~
jaekwon
I meant to ask something about your general intelligence, but I redacted it.

~~~
dextorious
You did the internet a favor. Your question would not have been anything
remotely intelligent, anyway.

------
kstenerud
It's interesting to see how the OP approached the argument: telling his friend
straight out that consistency and self discipline are the same thing, rather
than saying that self-discipline breeds consistency.

Had he gone with the latter, the argument likely would not have happened.
Instead, he misspoke, and then when his friend corrected him (they aren't
exactly the same thing, after all), his ego got the better of him and he
pushed on into a pissing match rather than clarifying his position. And then
be blogged about what a dumb ass his friend is.

There are many lessons on relationships to be learned here, and the OP has
pretty much missed all of them.

------
flueedo
I don't talk in technical terms with people who won't understand them. I would
never get in that kind of semantic debate if I were the friend who had lost
weight. I would however most definitely get into a discussion like that if we
were both translators, linguists, behavioral scientists or something like
that.

Consistency means self-discipline in his case. But many 'consistent behaviors'
in living and non-living agents mean something else entirely.

That said, this made me think of one particular type of "technical smartasses"
that have pissed me in the past: Lawyers and their legalese.

------
jaekwon
Oh I get it -- you're trying to show that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem
applies to humans. Haha.

* All consistent axiomatic formulations of semantic arguments include self-unaware bigotry.

You are brilliant, sir.

------
portmanteaufu
"Technical smart asses often have a narrow view of the world. They only see
what’s in front of them."

I find this to be a tremendous leap in logic from the rest of the author's
narrative. Some of the most technical, rationally driven people I know are
also some of the most open minded, willing to judge new concepts on their own
merits rather than deferring to culture or tradition.

Being a stickler for semantics does not mean you're incapable of objectivity,
empathy or lateral thinking.

------
Florin_Andrei
I have a much less flattering term for that kind of person: intelligent idiot.
Extremely capable to deconstruct tiny details, utterly incapable of letting
the details go. This type of person seems to be attracted by the computer
industry for some reason.

------
rickmb
Or alternatively, you could just say what you mean instead and avoid the whole
discussion in the first place.

But that would mean admitting that you were wrong...

------
theprodigy
You can watch this type of behavior in abundance on the show Big Bang Theory.

------
hemancuso
I find the title of the post misleading, technically.

------
Terretta
Which one of these things is not like the other one?

------
billpatrianakos
Not to disparage anyone but actually see this technical smartass stuff in the
comments on HN _all the time_. Someone makes a good point then someone else
nitpicks the most irrelevant detail or pulls out the dictionary definition of
the word even though the person's point is clear as day.

I agree with the author on a lot of this and personally feel that this sort of
thing is a sign of poor social skills and an inability to see different
perspectives or the bigger picture. It can get pretty exhausting.

It's funny that a number of comments on this story exemplify the author's
point perfectly. Don't get me wrong though. Please don't take this as me
complaining. I'm actually really happy with this community but you've got to
admit that what the author is talking about goes on so often around here it's
not even funny.

Most of the time focusing on the technical details will get you nowhere but
missing the point, totally off track, and arguing something very much
unrelated to the original topic. Case in point: see the comments on the post
about SpecialForces.com getting hacked. People started missing the point and
talking about the user's password strength instead of what was really at issue
(the security of the admin's access methods and credentials).

~~~
quanticle
>Most of the time focusing on the technical details will get you nowhere but
missing the point, totally off track, and arguing something very much
unrelated to the original topic.

That's true some of the time. A lot of the time, though, the technical details
are _important_. Look at the SOPA hearings. The reason they were so cringe-
inducing is because all of the technical details were glossed over. You had
uninformed Congressmen hand-waving their way past very important questions of
implementation and side-effects.

~~~
billpatrianakos
Yeah. I guess you're right. But my point still stands otherwise. I can't
really think of another way to word that eight now, it escapes me but you
still know what I mean. I stand corrected on that point though.

------
rkon
Well, self discipline isn't really the same as consistency, but his point
still stands.

To be fair though, you could completely lack self discipline and be extremely
consistent when it comes to watching TV on the couch all day.

------
dextorious
This is a nice take by Miguel De Icaza on the subject:

<http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html>

------
funkah
This comment section is a suitable demonstration of the author's point.

