Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Skepticism / Science Talk => Topic started by: DanDanDan on March 25, 2019, 01:06:19 AM

Title: Are millennials better with written subtext?
Post by: DanDanDan on March 25, 2019, 01:06:19 AM
The youngsters these days do far, far more communicating via the virtual written form. Is there any evidence that they are more skilled than previous generations at reading and/or writing subtext?

For example, I just posted on another thread about global cooling, but I came across as being a climate change denier because I didn't provide any subtext on my actual opinions at all. That sort of thing happens to me from time to time on forums or in texts or the like.

To me, that's what being good at writing subtext means: having the ability to accurately predict and compensate for the pattern prediction of the reader. For the assumptions that most people will make.

Or maybe this is just one of those areas where I'm a dumb dumb.

Nah, I'm the best! The question is, will future generations be even better?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Are millennials better with written subtext?
Post by: John Albert on March 25, 2019, 01:25:12 AM
Is this particular to Millennials? Seems to me that there are just certain well-traveled political issues that have their own common stock arguments, so we have a tendency to anticipate certain subtexts if we hear someone making those arguments.

If you were posting in a "global cooling" discussion and the other posters jumped to the incorrect conclusion that you're an AGW denier, that would appear to me to be a failure of reading subtext. It sounds to me like they projected their own suspicions onto you, rather than discerning the correct subtext that you intended.
Title: Re: Are millennials better with written subtext?
Post by: DanDanDan on March 25, 2019, 02:23:28 AM
No, it's not necessarily particular to Millenials. I'm talking about written communication in general, so this isn't a new skill or form of intelligence that I'm talking about.

I'm just assuming that anybody who grew up with texting, IMing, etc., is far more practiced at communicating in writing (in this case, virtual) than previous generations. Growing up, I hardly ever communicated one-on-one via writing.

So now I'm looking for actual evidence or research on this.

And sure, you can put the blame on the readers in my previous anecdote, but I don't think that's always fair. I think that there is a certain level of responsibility on the part of the person that putting there idea out there to predict the assumptions of a reasonable person.

Lies of omission are an excellent example. Most people (the "reasonable person") agree that a lie of omission is wrong, even though the mistake is technically on the person that makes a false assumption.