In the first example, the average-fitness person probably has a lot more variance and a lot less visibility on his physical performance than the Olympian. The Olympian presumably also has a selection of meta-skills surrounding his chosen discipline, and is capable of judging when he’s off his game or when he falls short of his own standards.
In the second example, well...
I don’t know if you’ve ever gotten into the timeless identi-discussion with someone who is literate, but refuses to learn how to adequately punctuate their sentences, because they don’t see the difference. A lot of people decry poor standards of reading comprehension, and my pet hypothesis is that many readers don’t actually parse and evaluate sentences, but just let their eyes suck in the words and have a good guess at what it’s supposed to mean.
I’ve never explicitly stated that hypothesis, but now I have, it seems like a case of attribute substitution: i.e. “Parsing this sentence is hard, so I’ll round it off to the nearest sentiment and assume that’s what it’s saying”.
If you’re interested in some actual research on that hypothesis, try Ferreira for a starting point. Any of the papers on her page with the phrase “good enough” in the title will be relevant.
A lot of people decry poor standards of reading comprehension, and my pet hypothesis is that many readers don’t actually parse and evaluate sentences, but just let their eyes suck in the words and have a good guess at what it’s supposed to mean.
If you read a legal contract it’s important to understand every word. In most cases it isn’t.
If you focus too much on details you can also lose context.
Years ago when I was a forum moderator I was reading forum posts in a way where I could decently reidentify a banned member that reregistered. On LW I now don’t seem to have that ability anymore to the same extend. My focus is elsewhere.
You trade different ways of reading against each other.
refuses to learn how to adequately punctuate their sentences, because they don’t see the difference
If someone wanted to check their map versus their territory on this one, wanted to determine if the problem was with their reading ability, the language itself, or the writing’s author. What advice would you give them?
(I see what you did there, if you did what I think you did. If you didn’t do it, please disregard this.)
I can see two cases you’re plausibly asking about here:
The case of not being able to make sense of a sentence and wanting to know whether it’s you failing to read something that is well-formed, the author failing to write something that is well-formed, or the language being able to support this content in a well-formed manner.
The case of reading a lot, and apparently understanding it, but not being sure whether you’re actually doing the necessary work to understand it, because the mechanisms of that work are inscrutable.
Which of these are you asking? Or are you asking something else?
I’m asking about the case of not being able to make sense of a sentence and wanting to know whether it’s you failing to read something that is well-formed, the author failing to write something that is well-formed, or the language being able to support this content in a well-formed manner.
To add context, I frequently encounter writing in legalese that I can’t break down into an if/else flow chart and the writing should be able to be broke down into a simple logical chain. If the author is using precise language to keep things as brief as possible and I’m unable to properly parse it, it means I have found a new blind spot. My old assumption was that the authors were constrained by word count and the language therefor settled with insufficient explination, or were oblivious to the ambiguous wording, which fits Hanlon’s Razor better.
Legal documentation has its own conventions which I am not remotely qualified to advise upon. In the event of uncertainty in legal documentation, it seems prudent to consult someone with a background in law.
(Law is an area I’m both quite interested in and very ignorant about, but I’ve yet to find a good on-ramp for learning about how to practically interact with legal institutions and processes. It seems like legal texts should be extremely unambiguous, because they are produced by institutions who are presumably aware of the problem of linguistic ambiguity, and otherwise how are legal documents supposed to do their job? Then I remember that the same argument can be made of technical documentation, and people who product that for a living can do a spectacularly poor job of it. Other fields presumably also have people who are bad at their jobs.)
To be clear, I’m using the broadest definition of legalese, in this case: design guides, building codes. Technical material recognized by the authority having jurisdiction that is not intended to be ambiguous, it is just complex. Stuff where the advice is consult your engineer instead of consult your lawyer.
I find that often this sort of writing—technical-ish, e.g. trying to describe a flowchart or a boolean circuit in casual text, as you see in law or documentation—has various sorts of ambiguities (e.g. issues with associativity and quantifiers) that would be obvious if you tried to transcribe it into code.
If I understand the vocabulary of a text but the syntax is unclear, I’ll assume it’s badly written. If it’s composed of pathologically malformed sentences, I’ll assume my English skills are better than the author’s. If the vocabulary is unusual, or it’s a subject I’m unfamiliar with, I’ll give more weight to my own ignorance being the problem.
It seems like legal texts should be extremely unambiguous, because they are produced by institutions who are presumably aware of the problem of linguistic ambiguity, and otherwise how are legal documents supposed to do their job?
That assumes that the linguistic ambiguity is bad for enough stakeholders.
A lobbyist who writes an amendment for a law doesn’t always want that the politicians who vote on the amendment understand what it does.
An ambiguous version might also be a compromise that allows both sides of a conflict to avoid losing.
In the first example, the average-fitness person probably has a lot more variance and a lot less visibility on his physical performance than the Olympian. The Olympian presumably also has a selection of meta-skills surrounding his chosen discipline, and is capable of judging when he’s off his game or when he falls short of his own standards.
In the second example, well...
I don’t know if you’ve ever gotten into the timeless identi-discussion with someone who is literate, but refuses to learn how to adequately punctuate their sentences, because they don’t see the difference. A lot of people decry poor standards of reading comprehension, and my pet hypothesis is that many readers don’t actually parse and evaluate sentences, but just let their eyes suck in the words and have a good guess at what it’s supposed to mean.
I’ve never explicitly stated that hypothesis, but now I have, it seems like a case of attribute substitution: i.e. “Parsing this sentence is hard, so I’ll round it off to the nearest sentiment and assume that’s what it’s saying”.
If you’re interested in some actual research on that hypothesis, try Ferreira for a starting point. Any of the papers on her page with the phrase “good enough” in the title will be relevant.
Thanks.
If you read a legal contract it’s important to understand every word. In most cases it isn’t. If you focus too much on details you can also lose context.
Years ago when I was a forum moderator I was reading forum posts in a way where I could decently reidentify a banned member that reregistered. On LW I now don’t seem to have that ability anymore to the same extend. My focus is elsewhere.
You trade different ways of reading against each other.
If someone wanted to check their map versus their territory on this one, wanted to determine if the problem was with their reading ability, the language itself, or the writing’s author. What advice would you give them?
(I see what you did there, if you did what I think you did. If you didn’t do it, please disregard this.)
I can see two cases you’re plausibly asking about here:
The case of not being able to make sense of a sentence and wanting to know whether it’s you failing to read something that is well-formed, the author failing to write something that is well-formed, or the language being able to support this content in a well-formed manner.
The case of reading a lot, and apparently understanding it, but not being sure whether you’re actually doing the necessary work to understand it, because the mechanisms of that work are inscrutable.
Which of these are you asking? Or are you asking something else?
I’m asking about the case of not being able to make sense of a sentence and wanting to know whether it’s you failing to read something that is well-formed, the author failing to write something that is well-formed, or the language being able to support this content in a well-formed manner.
To add context, I frequently encounter writing in legalese that I can’t break down into an if/else flow chart and the writing should be able to be broke down into a simple logical chain. If the author is using precise language to keep things as brief as possible and I’m unable to properly parse it, it means I have found a new blind spot. My old assumption was that the authors were constrained by word count and the language therefor settled with insufficient explination, or were oblivious to the ambiguous wording, which fits Hanlon’s Razor better.
Legal documentation has its own conventions which I am not remotely qualified to advise upon. In the event of uncertainty in legal documentation, it seems prudent to consult someone with a background in law.
(Law is an area I’m both quite interested in and very ignorant about, but I’ve yet to find a good on-ramp for learning about how to practically interact with legal institutions and processes. It seems like legal texts should be extremely unambiguous, because they are produced by institutions who are presumably aware of the problem of linguistic ambiguity, and otherwise how are legal documents supposed to do their job? Then I remember that the same argument can be made of technical documentation, and people who product that for a living can do a spectacularly poor job of it. Other fields presumably also have people who are bad at their jobs.)
To be clear, I’m using the broadest definition of legalese, in this case: design guides, building codes. Technical material recognized by the authority having jurisdiction that is not intended to be ambiguous, it is just complex. Stuff where the advice is consult your engineer instead of consult your lawyer.
I find that often this sort of writing—technical-ish, e.g. trying to describe a flowchart or a boolean circuit in casual text, as you see in law or documentation—has various sorts of ambiguities (e.g. issues with associativity and quantifiers) that would be obvious if you tried to transcribe it into code.
OK. Gotcha.
If I understand the vocabulary of a text but the syntax is unclear, I’ll assume it’s badly written. If it’s composed of pathologically malformed sentences, I’ll assume my English skills are better than the author’s. If the vocabulary is unusual, or it’s a subject I’m unfamiliar with, I’ll give more weight to my own ignorance being the problem.
That assumes that the linguistic ambiguity is bad for enough stakeholders.
A lobbyist who writes an amendment for a law doesn’t always want that the politicians who vote on the amendment understand what it does.
An ambiguous version might also be a compromise that allows both sides of a conflict to avoid losing.