[Al_U_Card]

gwnn, on Mar 8 2010, 05:27 AM, said:

simple example (albeit not quite within the restraints of the OP):

5 of us sat at a table and this guy was saying what a ridiculous sport curling is. Imagine the "sweepers" haha imagine their training and LOL and if they get thrown off the team they become janitors. I explained to him that there are no "sweepers", every guy sweeps and every guy launches (or what is the word). Was this being embarrassing or just informative?

You "deliver" a stone because your technique is referred to as a "delivery". Also referred to as a "throw".(As in: "He is throwing the "big weight" meaning a high speed usually for removing (taking-out) another stone (rock) from play.) Almost as arcane as bridge.

Back in the 1980's, I pulled a back muscle while sweeping during a tourney. I suggest your friend try the game before dissing it. If he comes off the ice unbruised, he might just find he likes it.

[jonottawa]

"Shortly after the close of World War I, I learned an invaluable lesson one night in London. I was manager at the time for Sir Ross Smith. During the war, Sir Ross had been the Australian ace out in Palestine; and shortly after peace was declared, he astonished the world by flying halfway around it in thirty days. No such feat had ever been attempted before. It created a tremendous sensation. The Australian government awarded him fifty thousand dollars; the King of England knighted him; and, for a while, he was the most talked about man under the Union Jack. I was attending a banquet one night given in Sir Ross's honor; and during the dinner, the man sitting next to me told a humorous story which hinged on the quotation "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will."

The raconteur mentioned that the quotation was from the Bible. He was wrong. I knew that, I knew it positively. There couldn't be the slightest doubt about it. And so, to get a feeling of importance and display my superiority, I appointed myself as an unsolicited and unwelcome committee of one to correct him. He stuck to his guns. What? From Shakespeare? Impossible! Absurd! That quotation was from the Bible. And he knew it.

The storyteller was sitting on my right; and Frank Gammond, an old friend of mine, was seated at my left. Mr. Gammond had devoted years to the study of Shakespeare, So the storyteller and I agreed to submit the question to Mr. Gammond. Mr. Gammond listened, kicked me under the table, and then said: "Dale, you are wrong. The gentleman is right. It is from the Bible."

On our way home that night, I said to Mr. Gammond: "Frank, you knew that quotation was from Shakespeare,"

"Yes, of course," he replied, "Hamlet, Act Five, Scene Two. But we were guests at a festive occasion, my dear Dale. Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save his face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? Always avoid the acute angle." The man who said that taught me a lesson I'll never forget. I not only had made the storyteller uncomfortable, but had put my friend in an embarrassing situation. How much better it would have been had I not become argumentative."

[kfay]

I'm with Jon.

[PassedOut]

I'm with Helene.

[jdonn]

There is a reason, for example, that there is a term called "grammar nazi" instead of "grammar fairy" or "grammar helper". It can be really annoying to be corrected on the spot, as well as potentially embarassing for either one of you or even someone else.

Also why does "wrong" have to be "nonsense"? It could be simply misspeaking. Or maybe it was a bad joke.

Or you could be "sure" you are correct when really both are correct. I remember on the forum first hearing "anti-clockwise". I "knew" that "counter-clockwise" was correct because, well, I just know it is. But it turns out it's only correct in my country. So sometimes the corrector is not even correct.

Seriously how can some of the smartest people here look at life so black and white that they would think it must be right to always or never do such a thing? I think they should realize that just because they wouldn't mind it being done to themselves doesn't mean at all that others wouldn't mind it being done to them.

[PassedOut]

jdonn, on Mar 8 2010, 02:15 PM, said:

Or you could be "sure" you are correct when really both are correct. I remember on the forum first hearing "anti-clockwise". I "knew" that "counter-clockwise" was correct because, well, I just know it is. But it turns out it's only correct in my country. So sometimes the corrector is not even correct.

To me, this is a great example of the reason for speaking up. If one is wrong (and I have considerable experience at that), one learns something new. Speaking up isn't right in every conceivable situation, of course, but as a general rule.

And it need not be rudely done.

[jdonn]

Well it was a little different since it was online, but instead of automatically correcting them (and remember this is in the context of I "knew" I was right) I went and googled anti-clockwise just to see if it was a common mistake. So I learned something anyway at no risk of making either of us look foolish, and was able to make the much more interesting contribution of "well it turns out this is different depending on the country" compared to "no it's counter-clockwise!"

[jonottawa]

Paraphrasing ~

It is foolish to correct others. I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without fretting over the fact that FSM has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence.

[PassedOut]

I see I have a different viewpoint from many posters I respect, and I'm happy to get your takes on this. We all have different life experiences that form these views. Interesting thread.

In my case, coming from a large family of opinionated and verbal people, I never got the idea that being wrong signalled a lack of intelligence (self-serving, I realize, because otherwise I'd have had to think of myself as really not very bright). It was more that not contradicting someone would be the real insult, because that would mean you considered the person too weak to stand up to a fair challenge or not bright enough to understand it. And I have to confess that most of the examples given in this thread still look like that to me.

But I am taking due notice of the consensus here. Glad this came up.

[gwnn]

PassedOut, on Mar 8 2010, 08:48 PM, said:

I see I have a different viewpoint from many posters I respect, and I'm happy to get your takes on this. We all have different life experiences that form these views. Interesting thread.

In my case, coming from a large family of opinionated and verbal people, I never got the idea that being wrong signalled a lack of intelligence (self-serving, I realize, because otherwise I'd have had to think of myself as really not very bright). It was more that not contradicting someone would be the real insult, because that would mean you considered the person too weak to stand up to a fair challenge or not bright enough to understand it. And I have to confess that most of the examples given in this thread still look like that to me.

But I am taking due notice of the consensus here. Glad this came up.

If you don't mind me correcting you, we're quite far from a consensus here.

edit: looks to me there are 5 people who would speak up (PassedOut, kenberg, Helene, hrothgar, Winston), 4 copouts (Marlowe jdonn jlall and Codo) and 4 who wouldn't (JoAnneM jjbrr jonottawa and kfay). I am sure I missed someone but this is a bridge distribution now and I don't think I'm so far off that there was in fact a consensus.

[PhantomSac]

Copouts lol...

This thread is really funny

[gwnn]

yea I know you're right of course it depends but it's always more awesome to have clear positions and disagreement

[PhantomSac]

So, everything is about context and what your goals are and what your relationship is like and what the other person is like etc etc.

Is this a minor point that is irrelevant to the story/topic in general? If so, probably let it go, since it is annoying to detract from an entire story or topic of discussion to correct a minor point. People who do this constantly are considered annoying.

However, if it's a pretty good friend and they are generally rational/interested in the truth and like learning new things etc, then correct them and they'll probably appreciate it. Basically in that case correct someone who you know will appreciate it, but in general it's annoying so default to not correcting it.

Is it just a slip of the tongue or whatever and you know what they meant? In that case never say anything.

Is it a major point of the story? Then doing so will probably invalidate their story, so you have the option of humoring them or correcting them. This totally depends on if you want to waste your time humoring them, if they are sensitive and will become defensive, if it will ruin the mood and you have to be around them longer, if it will spawn some new discussion, etc etc.

Again, there are just so many factors, part of being a human being with good social skills is evaluating all of these factors, understanding who you're talking to, understanding the dynamics, the environment, etc.

As others have mentioned, the best way to correct someone is in a non offensive way. For instance you can say:

"No, that is not true. The fact is..."

How will this make someone feel? Probably defensive. Probably it will hurt the mood.

You could also say.

"Oh, really? I had heard..." Make sure you watch your tone.

This serves to:

Not sound like an I KNOW MORE THAN YOU statement, or a YOU ARE WRONG statement. It's a non committal you MIGHT be wrong, but you might be right. It is friendly and sounds like a question. It gives the other person the out of "oh, maybe I was mistaken, I read somewhere that..." and you guys can leave it at that. No one is right or wrong. The other guy can look it up later or whatever.

In a completely rational world, if the person is more expert at a subject than you then if you tell him hes wrong, he should only disagree if he's sure he's right. If he's sure he's right and you're sure you're right, you are probably wrong. However the world is stupid, and people want to always be right, so this isn't how it works with most people.

The point if you correct them should not be to be right, it should be to point out a possible inaccuracy so that everyone is aware. Of course you might want to embarass someone or prove superiority, in that case go for it.

There are good and bad ways to handle these things. Making people defensive and calling them out is always a bad way. Leaving them a dignified out is a good way.

If the person is flat out wrong and they're around a new group of people or whatever, but you feel like they'd appreciate knowing they're wrong you can tell them later when you're alone. For instance:

"Dude, you know what you said about...? Well..."

They will hopefully appreciate that you waited to tell them. If you don't care about them then you don't have to say anything.

[jdonn]

What a cop out. Hey by the way don't forget to bring my poker chips to Reno! Unless they are in some city where you aren't, bleh. And tell Kevin to bring my other poker chips too! Then we can play and when you make a bet I can tell you I'm certain you are wrong even if you are more of an expert than I am.

[mikeh]

PassedOut, on Mar 7 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Few of us want to hold demonstrably wrong ideas.

I think you are very much mistaken on this. The majority of people strongly believe in things that are demonstrably wrong.

Assuming that any single religion MIGHT be true (which is a huge stretch), demonstrably only one can be so...they all claim to be the sole possessors of revealed truth. Thus either ALL holders of religious beliefs are in error, or 'only' the vast majority of them.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on Mar 9 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 7 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Few of us want to hold demonstrably wrong ideas.

I think you are very much mistaken on this. The majority of people strongly believe in things that are demonstrably wrong.

Assuming that any single religion MIGHT be true (which is a huge stretch), demonstrably only one can be so...they all claim to be the sole possessors of revealed truth. Thus either ALL holders of religious beliefs are in error, or 'only' the vast majority of them.

The vast majority of us certainly hold ideas that are in fact demonstrably wrong as you point out, and I have no doubt that I hold ideas that -- in my ignorance -- are demonstrably wrong.

That is somewhat different from wanting to hold demonstrably wrong ideas.

[gwnn]

I think you are overstating your case mikeh in many different ways.

• most Christians do not think their own Christian denomination is the only correct one
  
• (from what I understand) many Buddhists think Jesus and Mohammed are also just saying the same thing and you can arrive at the same conclusions
  
• it is not my impression of the world that the "vast majority of people" strongly believe religious claims (just paying membership fees or baptizing your kids does not make you a strong believer)
  
• Suppose I accept all your premises and say we have 10 different logically mutually exclusive groups and everybody is part of one of them. Then no single group is holding a "demonstrably false" tenet, even though it is demonstrable that at least 90% of the groups believe in something that is a falsehood.
  
• I am sorry I made this list, but I wanted to try it for structuring arguments, I hope you don't mind.

[y66]

gwnn, on Mar 7 2010, 03:48 PM, said:

You are talking with someone in a casual setting about something in his area of expertise (or just something that he's supposed to know much more than you). He says something that you are quite sure is just not true (later you look it up and it turns out you were right). Do you say something or do you pretend you believe him/agree?

Not saying anything is not the same as agreeing or pretending to agree. I think your moral obligation is to try to do the right thing, as you see it, based on the particulars of the situation.

I once failed to "correct" a guy who was driving us to a bridge game. We both knew the way. Traffic was bad and we were running a minute or two behind schedule. At one point he made a turn that cost us another 5 minutes. When we got back en route, he was annoyed I hadn't asked him wtf he was doing back there.

He was driving. He knew the way. He knew what time it was. I figured he took that turn because he knew a shortcut. It never occurred to me that I should have said something.

Unfortunately, he was having a bad day and later that evening he ended up in a near brawl at the club which got him banned for life.

Would it have mattered if I'd said something earlier? Who knows. Some people really don't like to be late I guess. If it does come up again, I might handle it differently. Not that it's going to with that guy on the way to that club. But it's not like it's a big deal to find a timely way to tactfully confirm a seemingly questionable decision or assertion when one comes up either.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Mar 9 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 7 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Few of us want to hold demonstrably wrong ideas.

I think you are very much mistaken on this. The majority of people strongly believe in things that are demonstrably wrong.

Assuming that any single religion MIGHT be true (which is a huge stretch), demonstrably only one can be so...they all claim to be the sole possessors of revealed truth. Thus either ALL holders of religious beliefs are in error, or 'only' the vast majority of them.

While many people holding mutually exclusive religious beliefs must be wrong*, that doesn't make any particular religion "demonstrably" wrong.

*Presuming that one believes in "truth" and the law of the excluded middle, which is not really a given these days.

[helene_t]

It is sorta irrelevant since you aren't going to chance someone's choice of religion over a coffee break chat.

You might change someone's ideas about the roles of curling players, though.