Re: FAQ: GLOSSARY
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:42 am
It's cute how quickly a position crumbles. Let's follow the bouncing ball here.
First, PsyGuy stubbornly (surprise!) insists that he isn't trying to create barriers while straw-manning the critique against him:
> If I was so disposed to creating barriers, why would I create a glossary and explain
> terms when asked. Introducing them on first use is not very helpful...
Then, PsyGuy doubles down, arguing that not only does he not intend to create barriers through his writing, but that his writing doesn't create barriers, period:
> So the difference between being disposed to creating barriers or that my
> writing creates barriers differentiates the barriers how? Your position is
> my writing creates barriers, mine is that it doesnt.
Oh, how quickly that shifts. Even in the same post cited above, he starts to walk out this "beyond the text" argument. It'd be a great argument if we weren't on a de facto help forum. But the "my writing [doesn't] create barriers" argument crumbles instantly. Heliotrope kicks it off:
> If a lot of people have to look up the acronyms used, in a glossary they
> might not know exists, it does create a barrier.
> It's pretty standard to introduce acronyms upon first use [...] and it's standard for an obvious reason:
> it lowers the barrier.
PsyGuy instantly concedes that readers have extra work to do to understand him:
> Well readers will have to explore the text to determine if there is a glossary.
After Heliotrope (accurately) points out that many readers will be confused by the acronym and not even know a glossary exists (let's call that a "barrier not overcome"), he hits the nail on the head:
> Plus it adds a step, where introducing the acronym upon first use in the
> thread isn't much extra work, plus it should be second nature to you if you
> ever attended university.
At this point, most people would just concede. Maybe a little righteous indignation ("I help people, I'm entitled to some shorthand") could be understood. But the battle is lost. The point is proven. That PsyGuy's writings creates barriers is beyond contestation by any rational........wait...
PsyGuy argues that they'll [all?] know of and consult the glossary, adding:
> So what, lots of systems processes can add a step, its a step, type
> 'glossary', click search. Its not climbing Everest.
In a few short posts we went from.
PsyGuy: I don't intend to add any obstacles to understanding. I'm helpful. I've added a glossary. My writing doesn't add any obstacles.
...to...
PsyGuy: "So what, lots of processes can add a step."
Honestly, PsyGuy, you should've stuck with your selfish "the time and typing savings are significant" argument. It's still laughable, but for a different reason. You spend a LOT of time [trying to?] [help?] people here. It's worthy of admiration. Even as I critique you, I've gone out of my way to acknowledge the areas where you are knowledgeable and your assistance valuable. You deserve credit for that. And if you could make a coherent argument along the lines of "I'm able to help the same amount and save 10% of my typing time with acronyms," it'd be hard to deny you your "time and typing savings."
But it's all bull. What do you really save from these acronyms? 1% of your forum time? Probably less. As an old saying goes, the cheap pay twice. Whatever you save, you wind up having to explain at length after reading follow-up inquiries. That's assuming everyone who doesn't get it follows up (they don't), and that's also ignoring THEIR lost time trying (often unsuccessfully) to look "beyond the text" for meaning.
You ultimately fail in your defense because of the very nature of this forum. You're [ostensibly] trying to help people. No one's forcing you to, you aren't paid, you aren't even receiving "credit" beyond your pseudonymous persona. If those you try to help don't fully grasp your meaning, or need twice as long to decipher your meaning, or have to follow up with you, you've helped them LESS. But instead of taking the constructive criticism, you hunker down into a ball of idiotic stubbornness, making your stand with an indefensible "I create no barriers" position.
You do. You've admitted that you're now aware, waving it off as an extra "step" (an understatement), but let me just put it this way, as someone NOT on your official adversaries list: if you're really so deluded that you think your time savings from (often made-up) acronyms outweighs the lost time (and lost comprehension) of readers, you have no reason to help people in the first place.
Oh, and an aside. Asking someone to spell out not-universally-understood acronyms "on first use" applies at least at the thread level (one *could* argue that it applies to posts; I'm not making that argument). The whole "its [sic] a minority of readers that will go back to read previous posts on common topics" routine is a red herring; as long as the acronym is spelled out the first time it's used in a thread, that's sufficient.
First, PsyGuy stubbornly (surprise!) insists that he isn't trying to create barriers while straw-manning the critique against him:
> If I was so disposed to creating barriers, why would I create a glossary and explain
> terms when asked. Introducing them on first use is not very helpful...
Then, PsyGuy doubles down, arguing that not only does he not intend to create barriers through his writing, but that his writing doesn't create barriers, period:
> So the difference between being disposed to creating barriers or that my
> writing creates barriers differentiates the barriers how? Your position is
> my writing creates barriers, mine is that it doesnt.
Oh, how quickly that shifts. Even in the same post cited above, he starts to walk out this "beyond the text" argument. It'd be a great argument if we weren't on a de facto help forum. But the "my writing [doesn't] create barriers" argument crumbles instantly. Heliotrope kicks it off:
> If a lot of people have to look up the acronyms used, in a glossary they
> might not know exists, it does create a barrier.
> It's pretty standard to introduce acronyms upon first use [...] and it's standard for an obvious reason:
> it lowers the barrier.
PsyGuy instantly concedes that readers have extra work to do to understand him:
> Well readers will have to explore the text to determine if there is a glossary.
After Heliotrope (accurately) points out that many readers will be confused by the acronym and not even know a glossary exists (let's call that a "barrier not overcome"), he hits the nail on the head:
> Plus it adds a step, where introducing the acronym upon first use in the
> thread isn't much extra work, plus it should be second nature to you if you
> ever attended university.
At this point, most people would just concede. Maybe a little righteous indignation ("I help people, I'm entitled to some shorthand") could be understood. But the battle is lost. The point is proven. That PsyGuy's writings creates barriers is beyond contestation by any rational........wait...
PsyGuy argues that they'll [all?] know of and consult the glossary, adding:
> So what, lots of systems processes can add a step, its a step, type
> 'glossary', click search. Its not climbing Everest.
In a few short posts we went from.
PsyGuy: I don't intend to add any obstacles to understanding. I'm helpful. I've added a glossary. My writing doesn't add any obstacles.
...to...
PsyGuy: "So what, lots of processes can add a step."
Honestly, PsyGuy, you should've stuck with your selfish "the time and typing savings are significant" argument. It's still laughable, but for a different reason. You spend a LOT of time [trying to?] [help?] people here. It's worthy of admiration. Even as I critique you, I've gone out of my way to acknowledge the areas where you are knowledgeable and your assistance valuable. You deserve credit for that. And if you could make a coherent argument along the lines of "I'm able to help the same amount and save 10% of my typing time with acronyms," it'd be hard to deny you your "time and typing savings."
But it's all bull. What do you really save from these acronyms? 1% of your forum time? Probably less. As an old saying goes, the cheap pay twice. Whatever you save, you wind up having to explain at length after reading follow-up inquiries. That's assuming everyone who doesn't get it follows up (they don't), and that's also ignoring THEIR lost time trying (often unsuccessfully) to look "beyond the text" for meaning.
You ultimately fail in your defense because of the very nature of this forum. You're [ostensibly] trying to help people. No one's forcing you to, you aren't paid, you aren't even receiving "credit" beyond your pseudonymous persona. If those you try to help don't fully grasp your meaning, or need twice as long to decipher your meaning, or have to follow up with you, you've helped them LESS. But instead of taking the constructive criticism, you hunker down into a ball of idiotic stubbornness, making your stand with an indefensible "I create no barriers" position.
You do. You've admitted that you're now aware, waving it off as an extra "step" (an understatement), but let me just put it this way, as someone NOT on your official adversaries list: if you're really so deluded that you think your time savings from (often made-up) acronyms outweighs the lost time (and lost comprehension) of readers, you have no reason to help people in the first place.
Oh, and an aside. Asking someone to spell out not-universally-understood acronyms "on first use" applies at least at the thread level (one *could* argue that it applies to posts; I'm not making that argument). The whole "its [sic] a minority of readers that will go back to read previous posts on common topics" routine is a red herring; as long as the acronym is spelled out the first time it's used in a thread, that's sufficient.