Some highly abstract things that annoy me

[simont]

People believing themselves to have an accurate and undisputed overview of a subject, which is in fact a thoroughly unrepresentative cross section that they have mistakenly elevated to the status of Revealed Truth. I used to think that the world was divided into details people and big-picture people, that I was firmly in the former camp, and that I therefore ought to listen respectfully to people in the latter camp because I needed their input to get certain sorts of thing done. I am now coming round to the view that in fact rather too many of the people in the latter camp are woolly-thinking, conclusion-jumping guesswork merchants to make this a dependable life strategy.

When I have a thought that feels like a big-picture insight, I have a healthy doubt of its universal applicability, and am therefore hesitant – perhaps overly hesitant – to noise it about until I'm really sure. And even then, I tend to start by saying ‘hmm, I wonder if’. Some other people seem to lack that doubt, which can make them sound interesting and incisive and highly synthetic … until one day they make a sweeping statement with their usual confidence and flair and you happen to know from personal experience that it is absolute drivel. And then you wonder about all the other things they've ever said in that tone of voice, and worry that you might have let a quantity of comparable drivel influence your thought processes without realising.

Stamp-collecting overviews of a topic. If there's one way to explain a subject area to me which is guaranteed to leave me with the feeling that I've been told everything except what I really wanted to know, it's to list a lot of bits and pieces and not give an idea of how they all relate to each other.

Don't just tell me there are three schools of thought on a topic, for instance. Tell me whether they occurred at different points in history and superseded each other in a clear order; tell me whether any of them produced clear demonstrations that one of the others was untenable; tell me whether people's adherence to them correlates to any other relevant factor in their opinions or attitudes; tell me which, if any, is generally believed today and whether the reasons why look like changeable fashions or like genuine advances of understanding. And don't tell me there are five different ways to make a widget and then just list them with a brief description; tell me why I need to know that, such as what each one's advantages are compared to the others and why everyone hasn't just settled on a single one. Otherwise I will feel you haven't explained anything at all, you've just read out the sales catalogue.

The style of argument which involves waiting for the other person to make a definite statement, and then contradicting it without providing any counter-statement. If you've got all the answers, be so good as to share one or two of them with us; or, failing that, it's only fair for you to at least make some kind of a statement so we can have a turn at putting you down. Even Kosh didn't get away with this in the long run, and neither will you.

(Disclaimer: Each of the above annoyances is derived from accumulating a large number of specific experiences and noting what they had in common. It's possible that some people reading this might have done some of these things on occasion; but if anyone thinks one of the above rants is directed mainly at them, it isn't.)

Comments

[uisgebeatha.livejournal.com]

*agrees in general*

I suppose I'm more in the big picture camp; that was always a criticism of my uni essays, that they took in a vast overview but needed more on the detail. Likewise in other things, I sort of look around a subject, but delving into the details doesn't bother me. It's when I get utterly, completely put off doing that by other people who *clearly* have already read everything on the planet and why should I bother when they can lecture everything at me?

I think we're all a bit guilty of sweeping statements- some commenters on the recent class memes, for example, have proved that they can open their mouths and let shit come out, more or less, without using the brain or the foot to mouth reflex. Where possible, I research to augment my personal experiences/views/biases- but I get the feeling some folk down here just want to tell me white is black, get over it. (And if you are on her flist- I forget- please read 1ngi's recent fantastic post on this sort of thing).

I'm reminded I owe you an email about foods- and if you'll indulge me, I'd like to forward the email I sent to Ingrid which might expand more than a limited LJ comment will. :P

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Unsurprisingly, you've said something I often think, but articulated it a lot more clearly :)

With regard to #1, I often feel the same way (and sometimes am on the other side). I think, presumably, that most people, if they considered, *don't* think they know all the answers, but just communicate in a way that can seem that way.

Eg. a generalisation could be the easiest way of making a point. "but foos are generally bar" could be a way of saying "But some foos are bar, I think that tendency is insufficiently explicated in the conversation so far"

Eg. They're sharing they're collected experience to date for the common edification, but have yet to consider exactly how they synthesised it (adn may or may not relish help on that point).

Eg. They've learned that most people only listen if they're declarative and have social cues to indicate that they don't really mean it.

Often, I hear conversations that go:

P1: Blah blah blah details blah
P2: Blah sweeping contradiction blah
P3: [long argument about sentence #2, in which it transpired person #2 was thinking aloud, and it only *sounded* like they had a large emotional commitment to their position]

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

A thing that particularly annoys me is that people publish books about life that fall into the second camp, in the millions, in hardback. All those trees spent on incorrect and incomplete information that some people will actually believe until and after they fall between the gaps!

[deliberateblank.livejournal.com]

Stamp-collecting overviews of a topic...haven't explained anything at all, you've just read out the sales catalogue.

Been reading Wikipedia again?

details vs big picture

[douglas-reay.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling that both are needed. Darwin was certainly capable of thinking about the big picture, but he was a details type of person, spending years backing up his theory, and only publishing when he did because of Wallace and Lyell.

Perhaps the difference between someone who is purely detail, and someone who also has a big picture is the selection of which detail.

Take programming.

Person A studies C in great detail, and perhaps C++ and C#. They submit patches for the GCC compiler.

Person B knows enough to program code in every language under the sun, but does not know enough about any of them to be certain of security, efficiency or obscure bugs.

Person C knows bits about systems administration, gathering user requirements, user interface design testing, perl scripting, database optimisation, java serverlets, writing device drivers in C for unix, LISP proof checkers, cryptography. They don't know as many languages as person B and they don't have the same encyclopeadic knowledge of a particular language as person A, but they do have highly detailed knowledge of 2 or 3 areas and they know how much or little knowledge they do have about each area.