A major (attempted and ongoing) transition in my conversational approach is to try and focus on the prediction at hand, as explicitly as possible, as often as possible. Especially when there is a disagreement. It might help avoid this kind of pedantic behavior (if I can remind myself to stick to the predictions at hand).
Speaking of being pedantic, I don’t like some of the writing style you used here. I know, an old complaint about this site; here it is anyway:
Use your own words, ask your own questions, but don’t enforce an inadequate prescriptivism with feigned incomprehension while your interlocutor only wants you to pass the peas.
I was fine with most of this sentence, but using “interlocutor” broke the camel’s back for me. Why not say “the other person” or something? Could’ve given the same information, with a lower barrier to entry and less mental energy required. You want as many potential readers to get it, right? I predict it would’ve gone better worded another way. Try to write like Paul Graham.
A major (attempted and ongoing) transition in my conversational approach is to try and focus on the prediction at hand, as explicitly as possible, as often as possible. Especially when there is a disagreement. It might help avoid this kind of pedantic behavior (if I can remind myself to stick to the predictions at hand).
Speaking of being pedantic, I don’t like some of the writing style you used here. I know, an old complaint about this site; here it is anyway:
I was fine with most of this sentence, but using “interlocutor” broke the camel’s back for me. Why not say “the other person” or something? Could’ve given the same information, with a lower barrier to entry and less mental energy required. You want as many potential readers to get it, right? I predict it would’ve gone better worded another way. Try to write like Paul Graham.