Talk less and listen more.
Realize that there is always someone that knows more than you do about any subject. Be humble knowing that you can always learn more.
A quote from Epictetus comes to mind.
"The gods gave us two ears and one mouth so we may listen twice as often as we speak."
i try to remember something Picard once said to Data about limiting one's answers to information that's pertinent and contextually-relevant to a situation. people don't want a lecture when a quick answer will do.
i have observed that, typically, when someone asks me a question, it's because they're trying to solve a problem, not to learn something new. The best course of action, then, is to help them solve their problem by giving them an expedient and relevant answer rather than to attempt to educate them on a new subject. they often have neither the interest nor the time.
Now that I think about it, was Data autistic?
I'm not sure whether or not the android Data could be considered autistic from an in-universe perspective, but I would say that as a character Data was inspired by autistic humans and written in a way that neurodivergent viewers would empathize with. At least that's how he's always come across to me, as a neurodivergent trekkie.
Data has very much been adopted by the autistic community, but it's debatable to what extent we can think of Data as being autistic. Certainly his character resonated with a lot of autistic and other neurodivergent folk, but it's likely that this wasn't even intentional.
Hah thats season 1! I just watched that episode yesterday or the day before. Picard also told him not to babble which prompted Data later on to catch himself babbling and call himself out
I avoid correcting people over trivial things. If something would make me sound like a teacher or tour guide, I usually just don’t say it.
When I do decide to speak up (mispronunciations are a big thing for me), I either try to emphasize that I’m doing it out of concern (“I don’t want you to sound silly if you say it in front of others”, which is an honest concern) or I try to sound casual and not act like an absolute authority (“Really? I’ve always heard it pronounced like ______”) That last one has the added benefit of covering my butt if I’m wrong.
I once saw some great advice saying we should celebrate when someone mispronounces a word: it means they learned it from reading.
It reminded me of a time when my uncle was barely literate and pronounced the word 'esoteric' as 'ee-SOTTER-ick'. I realised what had happened, but didn't really know how to correct him, then found a way to say the word myself in the flow of the conversation.
He never mispronounced it again, and there was no uppity nephew embarrassing his uncle. In the years since he's published a number of books, so couldn't be happier for him.
I’m happy for him too
I've gotten better at saying "I don't know", or "that rings a bell, but I'm not sure, can you remind me", or "what does that word mean?". Because I was The Smart Kid(TM) at school and I carried that on by heading to a prestigious university, I had a hell of a complex about looking stupid. Being smart was so tightly woven into my identity that I struggled to perceive myself outside of a framework of academic success or the nebulous idea of intelligence.
I got a hell of a lot smarter when I learned how to not know stuff though, because I got to learn unexpected things from unexpected sources. I worked on reframing my own intelligence/knowledge wrt my self view, and nowadays, I feel like the thing I'm most proud of is my curiosity, and my openness to learning new stuff.
Was it not Socrates who was told by the Oracle of Delphi that he was the wisest for he proclaimed he knew nothing at all? That parable(?) always stuck with me and although I tried to practice it beforehand, it's a good reminder that the universe is so vast and we are so insignificantly small. Our entire human knowledge pales woefully in comparison to the breadth of what exists. I only wish I could see it all.
Empathy.
One of my pet peeves is when I ask a question of someone, and they reinterpret my question (without communicating that reinterpretation), then give me the answer to THEIR question.
I'll be the first to say that is possible for someone to form their question wrong, but I give them the benefit of the doubt and give them the answer to their question FIRST, and then restate the question I think they want for the answer I think they're looking for.
Their question: "What time does the plane take off for Chicago?"
My answer: "11AM, but think you're asking because you want to know when I'm leaving. I decided to drive instead of flying and will be leaving at 9AM."
I allow for the possibility that their question IS the right question and give them their answer immediately, even though all of the conversation context suggests they're not interested in the plane departure, but instead my travel plans. Doing this avoids so many annoying conversations of confusion and frustration on both people's parts.
When asked on an informational topic, I give the one or two sentence answer, then ask "Does that answer your question or would you like more detail?" Lots of times people want just a short answer, but a surprising amount they ask for more detail and I'm happy to give it. Consent is important.
Lastly, I assume I'm missing information and can learn from others. When someone says something that doesn't match my understanding, I ask them to explain it so I can learn. I'd rather have correct knowledge than be "right".
One of my pet peeves is when I ask a question of someone, and they reinterpret my question (without communicating that reinterpretation), then give me the answer to THEIR question.
Not quite the same thing, but relatively similar. It irks me to no end when I ask a question that has some (either explicitly stated or—at least I thought—implicitly stated) elements that I understand. And then people answer the question by re-explaining the thing that I already understand. Sometimes they leave it there and the answer is completely useless. Sometimes they then move on to help explain the part I wanted help with, in which case I usually just try to move on, but that irking is still there in the back of my mind. Happened to me recently enough on this site to have immediately jumped to the front of my mind again when I read your comment, every single one of the answers provided rehashing what I thought were 101 elements I had demonstrated an understanding of in the wording of my question. Most at least moved on from that 101-level to provide helpful answers.
I allow for the possibility that their question IS the right question and give them their answer immediately, even though all of the conversation context suggests they’re not interested in the plane departure, but instead my travel plans
The second part of this is called a "frame challenge", in the sense that they've "framed" the question as "when does the plane leave", but you're challenging that because you think they mean "when do you leave". I like to explicitly tell them I'm frame challenging, if I recognise that that's what I've done. I like to think it lets them know "hey, this person thinks they're helping even though they aren't directly answering, but feel free to ignore it or clarify if they've made a mistake". It's also handy because in more complicated situations it can get the querant to reevaluate what they really want, because they may have just assumed they needed something particular that they actually didn't need.
Not quite the same thing, but relatively similar. It irks me to no end when I ask a question that has some (either explicitly stated or—at least I thought—implicitly stated) elements that I understand. And then people answer the question by re-explaining the thing that I already understand.
This one doesn't bother me as much most of the time. Some people brains work differently and what you're describing I've seen with two different thinking patterns:
- The person is "showing their work" to make sure you both agree with the premise and supporting arguments.
- The person is actively thinking through it out loud as a method to process your question.
However, if they get to the end of their re-explaining, and still haven't answered your initial question, then they can be pressed or guided into it. Sometimes you have to give an obvious wrong answer for them to contradict. "So are you saying the observer experiences no elapsed time relative to the traveler at the speed of light?"
I like to think it lets them know “hey, this person thinks they’re helping even though they aren’t directly answering, but feel free to ignore it or clarify if they’ve made a mistake”.
I try to accomplish the same thing by just giving them the explicit answer they asked for up front.
I've heard this communication issue referred to as the XY Problem. Having a phrase for it has helped me to better recognise when it happens and respond as you do in your example.
I’ve heard this communication issue referred to as the XY Problem.
First, thank you for sharing that, it made my teeth grind with frustration. Second, I experience a variation on this that is particularly frustrating. I am a user that knows how to do X. I ask if X needs to be done. Others hear me asking if X needs to be done, and instead of just saying "yes" or "no" they make assumptions about why I'm asking if X needs to be done and instead suggest I do Y instead if I want to do something. I know that X is the appropriate action, what I asked simply if X needed to be done. When I tell them Y wouldn't accomplish the task, they say, "then you should do X". Right, thanks. I knew that already. That wasn't my question. Which brings me right back to my VERY FIRST QUESTION which they could have answered "yes" or "no" with..."yes, X needs to be done".
This happens moderately often to me and I haven't developed a method to communicate the idea nicely of "Please, just answer 'yes' or 'no' and nothing more" without being rude. Instead I to go through this whole exercise again and again just to be nice to them.
Always remembering that the depth and breadth of what I DON'T know is vastly deeper and wider than what I think I know.
Also, the fact that I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday. Pretty sure it was tuna salad, but it could have been an apple.
Ask yourself if this person WANTS to hear what they should have done.
Someone may be talking about how they were trying to do something for the first time and the challenges they faced, and when you butt in with "What you should have done is..." You think you're being helpful since this information will save them a lot of frustration next time, but wait until they are done explaining the situation. They may have already figured out what you were going to say, and don't need your info, or, maybe they are still stuck and could use that info, but wait for them to let you know if it's wanted or not.
Just admit when I don't know something. Awhile ago someone asked me why birds legs don't freeze when they're hopping around in the snow. I could've spouted some loose hypotheses, but instead I just acknowledged "I have no clue, would have to ask google."
With looser, more "the way things are" kinda life principles, it's helpful to remember that the world is a really big place, and how people act/what they value varies tremendously from place to place. So, "how people are" is actually usually just "how people I'm around are". This is why people are advised to be careful in choosing who they spend lots of time with.
I guess another course of action is to turn it into a discussion. Like "I don't know, do you think birds have blood circulation in their legs?". Admitting not to know stuff and to ask follow-up questions is generally pretty good conversation making.
This is great! I hate when my husband presents his best guess as fact. I don't care that he's guessing, just tell me it's a guess!
If I ask what cleaner to use on marble and he says "use the all purpose cleaner" tell me that's a guess! Because the all purpose cleaner has citric acid! That's bad for marble!
I try to check everything, and Google anything I'm unsure of. He just does whatever feels right and then later says, "how was i supposed to know tupperware goes on the top shelf of the dishwasher? I didn't have one growing up." If you've never used an appliance before, Google it!! I've used a dishwasher my whole life, but when I became responsible for the one in our home, I read the manual.
I try to adhere to T.H.I.N.K
Is it True? is it Helpful? Is it Important? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind?
Depending on the situation and the company, I try to check off all 5 and if it doesn't, I won't say it.
It's a good guiding standard that I don't always meet, unfortunately, but I'm only human. If I realise I've missed the K factor later I will apologise.
My friends know me well enough as a know it all, so they're comfortable with making fun of me when I get all unnecessarily gabby on a subject. I'm cool with it.
Sometimes I remind myself silently "just listen"
The single biggest thing for me is having a range of knowledgeable and intelligent friends and spending time with them. It very soon puts things in perspective.
There are a range of aphorisms about you being who you spend time with. I think it's accurate.
Surround yourself with intelligent friends, in different domains of knowledge, and everyone's lives are enriched.
So, I'll take this from a slightly different angle than some of the other folks. Let's say that your conversation partner is verifiably wrong, and you know it. Before chiming in to correct them, ask yourself how much goodness you're bringing into the world by doing so, and who benefits from your efforts to educate.
If somebody is telling a teenager learning to drive that gas is on the left and brake on the right, they may actually hit something before they learn it. It's okay to correct that information.
If they just use "poor grammar," mislabel some technological item they are not attempting to use in a professional capacity, or they're off by an order of magnitude on some statistic they're using as trivia to bolster an otherwise reasonable claim, then correcting them doesn't advance the conversation or meaningfully facilitate communication. It's just making them look and feel stupid and small to your benefit. While your conscious impulse was probably not cruel, the whole activity is also tied up with ego and impulse control: we all want to look smart and scratch that psychological itch to share what we know. You won't always be able to resist or agree that something is trivial, but you have to put in the effort.
As a chronic know it all now raising another one, I try to ask myself, "if I weren't able to speak right now, would I still think it was important to catch up with this person later and educate them?" If the answer is "no," then there's no need to step in right then either. I will also say that if you've surrounded yourself with people who care about you, they're going to tolerate a certain amount of it as a harmless foible, and they probably will use you as a resource when they think it's appropriate. In a way that makes me all the more determined not to abuse the goodwill of my friends and loved ones by being an exhausting pedant.
...except for Anti-Stratfordians. They can fuck right off. I've picked that hill to die on and until I do I will leave the bloodied corpses of a million potential friendships in my wake. Fortunately it doesn't come up often. 🤣
"The price of being right" enters into this as well. It can be very frustrating when you let something go because the minor details do not matter, but being 100% technically correct has hazards of its own in a social narrative.
Well said. If I weren't an exhausting pedant, I might have been able to replace my whole comment with something that elegant. :-)
Was watching the wire the other day and there is this whole scene where the Judge Phelan is being a pedant just to be a dick to McNulty. In the scene he is explaining the difference between then and than while insulting Jimmy the whole time. Its a really good scene of showing how people use pedantery to show status and shame others.
Now I need to know, what are anti-stratfordians and what's your beef with the concept?
Aargh. My browser just wiped the long version. SHort version: People who think Shakespeare didn't write his plays and poems. They're virtually all classist assholes who think only a noble with an Ox-bridge education could write that well, completely ignoring what made Shakespeare different, the historical context in which he lived, how his reputation evolved over time, and how all of that is more than reasonably well-aligned with what we know about him.
I try to learn something new, but tangentially related. The beginners mindset helps my ego from getting big.
Similarly, I'm just permanently bad at stuff. Not intentionally but for example my dyslexia is a constant reminder of my own limitations.
Just learn everything so you really do know it all.
If you have the option to choose between phrasing something in the form of a statement and phrasing it in the form of a question, do the latter.
I'm fanatically polite so I am mindful of being humble in my interactions.
Regularly and intentionally spend time considering the opposite.
This helps you to check your paradigms.
It also helps if you search for content which contradict your current thinking rather than support it, just to get that perspective.
For example, if you're super organised, a book like A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits Of Disorder may help you to see things in a different light.
I have a pleasant chat with David Dunning and Justin Kruger
I fuck up.
Not to correct orther people if it's not absolutely necessary or being asked to.
ie, I would correct someone who said "drinking bleach can cure covid". But I wouldn't if they said "the earth is flat".
Decade ago, a friend of a friend was building a computer. I suggest they get a SSD for the OS. They said SSDs are a scam and don't have any advantages over HDDs, and the durability is worse. So I'm like "alright, it's your money" and stop involved with the matter.
None of your examples would make me think you would be a "know it all" by responding to such idiotic opinions. That would depend on how you challenged the dumb thing they just said
"Oh? Why's that? " (Said genuinely asking why they hold that opinion) is a perfectly fine response to that kind of idiocy.
Though perhaps we have her different ideas of what a know it all is. "Mansplaining" to me is iconic know it all behavior
Try to admit when I don't know much about a topic and learn as much as I can from other people about it without interrupting them.
I never do, and don't understand why someone would.
What's wrong with being a know it all?
Nothing. If you're into that sort of thing.
