
You're the Smartest Guy In The Room ... but please, try to restrain yourself. - fogus
http://www.plope.com/smartest_guy_in_the_room
======
run4yourlives
I was with him until he said "I could care less".

Couldn't damnit, _could not._ This irks me to no end.

</grammar nazi>

~~~
mcantor
I commend you, good sir, and assert that you are no grammar nazi. A nazi is
crude, unreasonable and thoughtless. You are none of these things. You have
merely demanded a minimum amount of effort from the people around you, an
infinitesimal moment spent in quiet reflection that could perhaps result in a
magical epiphany resembling, "Wait a minute, if I could care _less_ , that
means I am caring _more than the minimum! That is not what I am trying to
express!_ Alack, I must duly backspace."

Edit: And to whoever downvoted this man, I officially call you a knave.

~~~
noonespecial
It is important to write correctly. If you allow "I could care less" to
congeal on top of "I _couldn't_ care less" in one big idiomatic mess, you more
or less lose the ability to express "I could care less".

A more extreme example that also bothers me to no end is "begs the question."
Its now quite impossible to use this phrase to call out the logic error to
which it originally referred as it is now used interchangeably with "raises
the question". When I want to call the error, I have to do a mini exposition
on circular reasoning. I feel cheated out of this fine piece of language.

There's a difference between nazism and simply insisting on correctness. I
also commend.

~~~
codyrobbins
I disagree with almost every single response in this entire thread, so I don’t
know where to begin. The use here is idiomatic, as many people have pointed
out. The intonation contour of the phrase is completely different than the
non-idiomatic usage. I think that those people who say that there is no
intonation difference are simply not consciously sensitive enough to
intonation to realize that there’s a difference. Another example might
illustrate intonation differences more clearly, even though the nature of the
difference in the example is different than that in _could care less_. There
is a difference between the intonation of _black bird_ meaning a bird that is
black, and _black bird_ meaning a specific type of bird known as a black bird.
The former has a relatively flat intonation contour, while the latter has
definite stress on the initial word. So, there you go: we have the exact same
word mapping to two different referents, but people can somehow distinguish
which referent is meant based solely on the intonation contour. (Let’s not get
into a discussion of the definition of ‘word’, but it suffices to say that
_black bird_ is two orthographic words in both cases, but one lexical item in
the latter case and two in the former.) So, the fact that there’s a difference
in the intonation of _could care less_ means that listeners can distinguish
between the literal and idiomatic uses, and the intended meaning is perfectly
clear. As someone else points out, Steven Pinker has happened to analyze this
exact phrase in _The Language Instinct_ , and he concludes it comes from a
sarcastic interpretation of the original literal meaning. For those of you
sitting in your armchairs who don’t agree with his analysis, all I can say is
that he’s a highly respected linguist who knows what he’s talking about.

We still say _room and board_ even though _board_ no longer means food. Should
we stop using that collocation because it includes an obsolete word? We say _a
little bird told me_ even when a little bird did not, in fact, literally tell
you something. Furthermore, birds can’t tell anyone anything, because birds
can’t talk, so the phrase logically doesn’t make any sense either. But we
still use it, because it doesn’t need to be ‘logically’ consistent to
communicate meaning. So it doesn’t matter whether _could care less_
‘logically’ makes sense based on its literal meaning — its literal meaning is
not the meaning people ascribe to it when used idiomatically. Even more
importantly, though, the surface form of language is not necessarily
‘logical’, simply because it’s so complex under the surface that it’s
unintuitive what’s going on. It doesn’t make any everyday sense that subatomic
particles exhibit quantum tunneling and entanglement and all sorts of other
strange phenomena, because the underlying physics is so ridiculously
complicated that it has to be studied in minute detail before a real picture
emerges.

Another similarly uninformed objection, along the same lines of reasoning,
that I often hear people make is that we ‘should’ eliminate redundancy from
language. They say that’s why double negatives and words like _irregardless_
are ‘bad’. But Spanish has double negatives and they’re perfectly grammatical,
so what’s wrong with having them? If you use a word like _irregardless_ ,
everyone understands what you mean perfectly, so what’s wrong with using it?
Furthermore, as hackers you should all realize that redundancy is good. Having
a multiply redundant array of disks makes sure there’s not a single point of
failure, and having multiply redundant backups means that you don’t go down
like Ma.gnolia. Speech is a signal, and signals experience loss, attenuation,
interference, etc. A word like _irregardless_ — with redundant affixes in it —
may very well be far more communicative in noisy environments. Even if the end
of the word is cut off, people can still reconstruct or extrapolate what was
said. And remember, the point of a word in spoken speech is to communicate.
How do you know usage hasn’t shifted to that form, as a preference over
_regardless_ , for exactly that reason? The answer is that you really don’t.

There are processes at work in language change that you don’t have any control
over by being a nazi or a pedant. The language changes, whether you like where
it goes or not. And it’s twelve steps ahead of you, because it’s changing to
satisfy or maximize requirements and utility functions that none of us can
even begin to understand fully.

Second of all, this isn’t a syntactic issue in the first place, so it’s
misleading to call yourself a grammar nazi. The sentence ‘I could care less’
is perfectly syntactically valid. This is purely an issue with the lexicon.
And if you’re going to be a lexicon nazi, there are a few things you should
know about the lexicon. First, it’s one of the most rich, fluid, and dynamic
aspects of the language, and changes the fastest. Trying to keep it ‘pure’ or
stop it from changing is not possible. Second, lexical differences are present
across a multitude of axes: geographic, socioeconomic, gender, etc. There is
no ‘correct’ lexicon, therefore there is nothing for you to ‘correct’ about
the way someone else is speaking.

Third, I really don’t like how so many people on HN have a general attitude of
anti-authoritarian superiority, but then you get these sort of rambling
hypocritical threads where people pounce on perfectly legitimate uses of
language. People pounce like that in other places, but it doesn’t bother me so
much because it’s not coupled with the anti-authoritarian bent. The kind of
prescriptive rules you are discussing are essentially a marker for whether
someone has been educated or not. Those who do not have access to education,
for whatever reasons, do not learn the prescriptive rules that allow you to
write in a manner that sounds educated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
the way hillbillies or inner city black kids talk — it is demonstrable that
their language follows the same kind of rules as Standard American English,
and are just as logical and consistent. It’s ironic because, in certain
respects, those dialects are _more_ logical and consistent than SAE. So by
making these sort of glib, ad hominen, red herring remarks whenever anyone
makes a grammatical ‘error’, you’re really just reinforcing the entire system.
Note that I’m not making any value judgment or stance on the existence of a
prestige dialect, or on anti-authoritarianism itself; it’s just that I find
the combination of the two hypocritical. This entire thread gives me the same
feeling I get when you hear Victorian era drawing room discussions about how
the savages in Darkest Africa and Oceania and the Orientals have to shown the
light about the superiority of ‘correct’ Western culture. In hindsight, those
opinions are so black and white as to be laughable, because there is so much
nuance involved just in the question of what the words _correct_ or _superior_
even mean.

Hmm, I didn’t realize how much I wrote until I just posted this. If I had a
blog I guess this should be a blog post.

~~~
Confusion
The fact that language changes is often, as you do, presented as a reason and
justification for a change under discussion. However, that is plainly false
reasoning and we need solid arguments as to why we should accept certain
changes.

I resist change where I feel it makes a language less clear. There's nothing
authoritarian or conservative about that stance: it's about plain usability.
When someone says 'I could care less', where I expect 'I couldn't care less',
then I get confused. I take extra time parsing and interpreting the sentence,
_for no reason whatsoever_. There's already a perfectly applicable string of
words to express what someone wants to express, which includes the 'not'.
Leaving out the 'not' is not about 'creating a new idiom'. It's laziness or
ignorance and both cannot be excused by 'meh, language changes'. Neither is a
solid argument to change a language.

I appreciate your arguments in favor of 'irregardless', 'room and board' and
the blackbird and found them enlightning, but I fail to see how these apply to
'I could care less' or 'begging the question'. Those two can be explained just
fine by laziness and ignorance on the part of the user.

~~~
codyrobbins
I’m not presenting it as a reason or justification, but as a fact. You,
personally, are unable to engineer the course of the language, and your
resistance to a change does not stop the change from occurring. The language
does not need your acceptance for change to occur. It may seem to you like
it’s changing for no reason whatsoever, but that’s only because — sitting
there in your armchair — you’re unable to come up with a good reason off the
top of your head.

Saying that it takes you longer to parse the sentence is anecdotal nonsense,
because there’s no way for you to measure that without doing a controlled
psycholinguistics experiment.

What I said was fairly clear, but to be explicit, _room and board_ is relevant
to _could care less_ because it shows that forms can fossilize. It does not
matter that _board_ doesn’t mean ‘food’ anymore, just as it no longer matters
that _could care less_ means the opposite of what it would literally. You
don’t mention my example of _a little bird told me_ , but it is relevant
because it shows that idioms do not have to be interpreted as the literal sum
of their parts (and, in fact, by definition, aren’t).

You’re missing the point of just about everything I originally said, and you
really don’t address any of the arguments I brought up, other than to say you
fail to understand them.

~~~
Confusion
_It may seem to you like it’s changing for no reason whatsoever, but that’s
only because — sitting there in your armchair — you’re unable to come up with
a good reason off the top of your head._

That's basically "you cannot prove there isn't a good reason". That's the case
by definition. The burden for justifying the change lies with those supporting
the change.

 _Saying that it takes you longer to parse the sentence is anecdotal nonsense_

There is nothing anecdotal about my _experience_. If I have to blink and think
twice about what someone is saying, then he is using nonstandard idiom.

 _it shows that forms can fossilize_

That stuff _can_ fossilize, doesn't mean we should _let_ it fossilize. You're
rehearsing the fallacy I was pointing out: 'could care less' is not fossilized
and there is no bloody reason to allow it to fossilize. Moreover, you're
comparing something that used to be standard idiom and has fossilized in that
state with something that is changing and may fossilize in that new, changed
state. The argument for the first rests entirely it's history and age, both of
which the second lacks.

~~~
codyrobbins
_The burden for justifying the change lies with those supporting the change._

You’re the one categorically claiming that the way people talk is somehow
‘wrong’. If you want to make that claim, you need to support it. Without going
into highly technical details, I explained some ways why the usage could make
sense. Your response was simply to say, as if declaring it somehow makes it
true, that there is no reason for the usage.

 _There is nothing anecdotal about my experience. If I have to blink and think
twice about what someone is saying, then he is using nonstandard idiom._

By definition your experience is anecdotal. I doubt you have to think twice
when someone says it, but we’d have to subject you to an experiment to be
sure. But simply put, there are so many cognitive biases that may potentially
be at work that you really can’t reliably judge yourself whether it takes you
longer to process. Sentence processing happens on the order of tens of
milliseconds.

 _That stuff can fossilize, doesn't mean we should let it fossilize._

You’re assuming that you have some control over whether the use develops in
the language. I’m saying that’s a flawed assumption and that you don’t.

If you’re so sure the usage is wrong, it may be interesting to note how many
hits there are for each phrase in Google’s index:

    
    
      2,220,000 for "could care less"
      1,410,000 for "couldn't care less"
    

I readily admit that this, too, is anecdotal evidence. But it’s quite telling,
no?

~~~
tome
How would you describe the use of "it's" to mean "of it", or "its" to mean "it
is"?

"Wrong" is the word I'd use, regardless of what definition _you_ wish to give
that word. What word or words would you use?

~~~
codyrobbins
The presence of the apostrophe is an orthographic convention and has nothing
to do with language in the least. There’s no apostrophe in _it’s_ when people
pronounce it.

~~~
tome
Hmm, I'm intrigued by your assertion that orthography has nothing to do with
language, but indeed you're right that this is an issue which relates to
spoken language, so I'll ask a different question:

How would you describe the use of "isn't" where "am not" is generally
considered grammatical?

For example "I isn't a liar" rather than "I am not a liar".

~~~
codyrobbins
Again, you’re missing the point. I can’t prescriptively judge whether
something is grammatical or not, nor can anyone else. Grammaticality isn’t
something which someone decides — a grammatical sentence is by definition a
sentence which speakers of the language produce and understand. It is
grammatical if people use it. If there is a particular dialect of English
where they use _isn’t_ as the first person singular form of the copula, then
it is grammatical.

It would not be grammatical in the standard American English dialect, which I
think is what you’re getting at. But you have to be careful with your terms
here, because in the technical sense ‘grammatical’ means an acceptable
sentence of the language, whereas I have a feeling your understanding of
‘grammatical’ means ‘how we were taught to write in school to communicate to
other people that we have been educated’. My entire point is that there’s a
difference.

You would probably call the sentence

    
    
      He been had that job.
    

completely ungrammatical. In Black Vernacular English, however, it’s perfectly
acceptable. What’s more, depending on the pronunciation of _been_ , this
sentence can communicate a tense that doesn’t exist in standard American
English. In SAE it can only be communicated by adjunct material like ‘for a
long time’. Ostensibly, this is more efficient.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_Eng...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English)

------
hegemonicon
This is basic strategy really - being a dick to people will almost never bring
you closer to a goal you've set, which means there's no point in doing it. The
success rate of "calling people stupid until they agree with me" is quite
low...

~~~
chasingsparks
I think it depends on your intent. Being a dick is a clever strategy if you
want attention. Being a dick by calling someone very popular (or visible)
stupid gets you attention. Instead of people ignoring the dick, they pile on
and then criticize him -- which is giving him attention. Then, people who find
some reason to agree with him pile on and defend him. Bamb, the dick has now
usurped some of the targets authority.

(P.S. I am not defending this strategy. I find it annoying -- but entertaining
in a checkout line gossip rag type way.)

~~~
coglethorpe
"Being a dick is a clever strategy if you want attention."

Imma let you finish, but BEYONCE HAD THE BEST VIDEO OF ALL TIME.

~~~
chasingsparks
Well played. He was one of the examples I had in mind.

------
Raphael_Amiard
I don't know who this is for, except it's not me, but, after reading it in
with no person in mind, i read it again, like it was adressed to me, and i
thought "He's right"

------
brutimus
Copy of article text: <http://dpaste.com/hold/100477/>

~~~
masomenos
... which is relevant since Chris seems to have removed the original from his
webserver

------
amichail
Parents and teachers need to take part of the blame for making a big deal out
of innate intelligence.

------
oliveoil
Can someone from the python community say if this is pointed at someone in
particular?

~~~
albemuth
Zed Shaw maybe?

~~~
mikeryan
It could be Zed, but the funny thing is in that case, Zed got 100% test
coverage for Lamson done about a month ago.

<http://www.zedshaw.com/blog/2009-08-22.html>

~~~
rbanffy
So, it's not pointed at Zed.

Who else?

------
jriddycuz
The guy who introduced me to Python originally had that kinda dickish
attitude, and for some dumb reason I assumed the whole Python developer
community was like that. It really biased me against using the language for
quite some time, which is a shame because now I've come to really like it.

The moral of the story: some people have Asperger's, and you shouldn't let
their (pathologically?) contemptuous attitudes affect you.

------
hellotoby
This article has described elitism. Humility is the true sign of intelligence.

------
siddhant
I've seen people around me trying to unnecessarily add irrelevant technical
jargon to the simplest of matters which they want to tell me. In 99% of the
cases, it turns out to be something I have a _really_ good laugh on.

------
jrockway
It is worth nothing that just because something is an active community project
doesn't mean that it's the right way to do things. And also, just because the
right way to do things is not implemented in your favorite langauge doesn't
mean that the wrong way is not wrong.

------
raffi
I can always tell the smartest guy in the room types, my solution? I talk
about my visual basic projects and what a great language it is. It's a great
game to play.

------
immad
Site is down. No Google cache yet either...

------
nopassrecover
The tone is hilarious. Love the build up.

------
_pius
Brilliant.

------
rick2047
You know many people actually try to intentionally not become something like
the intended audience of that article. People around us can be really dumb,
you know like in a high school (or like in my case even college). Now the key
here becomes not to let yourself be pampered by such pseudo eliteness. I
always try to be with people who have a greater intellect than me, just so i
can beat them. but when i cant help it, i make it a point to keep reminding
myself this is not the crowd i can judge myself with

------
ilyak
Is that the "permafrost" Stevey wrote about?

------
thejash
I find it a little ironic that the server hosting this article is down.

~~~
slig
Why that would be ironic?

~~~
ihumanable
We get it, you're the smartest person in the room, you know the definition of
irony, you are not Alanis Morissette.

