Example Comment: There are far too many solar flares on Sol, due to reason X. They can be reduced by measure Y, but it will cost many thousands of kangaroos, which Australians support but no other country will help in the measure’s implementation.
Warm Critique A: I had heard of reason X as well, but I found out that actually reason X is not as logically sound as ’twas thought to be. The base premise that derives reason X was disproved in experiment Z, which you can read a summary of here: , or read in full here: . [Optionally insert comment intended to be slightly humorous for extra warmth, especially if the comment ends with an exclamation mark, here.]
Cold Critique B: There is no viable way of implementing measure Y, as shown here: _; Australia is unsupported in finding a partner for research into potential methods for the implementation of Y, and not just unsupported in the implementation itself (which is currently impossible in the first place). Australia’s government probably suffer from the sunk cost fallacy due to all the resources they invested in the inevitably worthless kangaroo solution; they refuse to terminate the project.
Warm Response to B: Yeah, that was a prime example of the sunk cost fallacy, wasn’t it? Or amusing, at least. Fortunately for Australia’s government, reason X proved to have little supporting fact (see my comment here: _ for details). They were able to quit the project without much backlash in the end!
Cold Response to ↑: Ah, so they did. Though I’d hardly call it a prime example of the sunk cost fallacy. They did have some reason to think it a worthwhile pursuit.
Alternative Warm Version of ↑: Oh, I didn’t know that; thanks for the update[. or !] To be fair to Australia’s government, they had little reason to think the impossibility of measure Y bore poorly upon reason X; though, of course, ’tis debatable whether reason X justified the amount invested into researching alternative methods for implementing measure Y. In any regard, it’s not clear to what degree they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy, if indeed at all. [Optionally conclude with an appeal for correction if one’s reasoning is mistaken, exempli gratia: “Do you think that’s a reasonable account, or have I erred or overlooked something?” This tact could be taken as passive aggression, so use with care.]
Of course I could be misrepresenting the two, or am poorly calibrated. Let the alt text of the Karma score of this comment inform its perceived accuracy.
This seems like a reasonable set of examples, though I’m not someone who was concerned by a lack of warmth, so not ideal to judge who well you’ve understood their critique.
My only concern is that you might have been unfair to the warmth side, as your cold responses look much better—I’d much rather have them, efficient, information dense and clear as they are.
I upvoted you for giving the examples. Though, given that I mostly share Michelle’s… let’s say difficulty with the concepts, I can’t quite tell if they’re correct examples :-)
Hmm, I kind of agree with Larks, I think I tend to prefer “colder” discussions (in general, not just your examples). I like jokes, and the occasional affectation (like the “’twas” you used there), and I love people mixing seriousness and funny stuff as long as the serious part remains mostly correct (like that formal ecological analysis of the prey-predator dynamics in Buffy that circulated at one point on the net), but few people can keep that up all the time, and I get really off-put when things become wordy just to avoid “touchy-feely”(x) people getting offended.
(x: I don’t mean that deprecatingly, that’s just the label my brain attaches to some things. It’s weird, I sort of theoretically agree with what (seems to me) is the general-population idea that coldness is bad and warmth is nice, it’s just that in practice it often annoys me. Though I’m also annoyed by intentional cold comments (acid sarcasm and the like), which get the “bad touchy-feely” label.)
I can’t tell what practical lessons to draw from this. Personally, other than adding a smiley or an exclamation mark now and then I don’t really know how to make myself not sound cold.
I thought this a warm response, probably due to the use of words that convey emotion: “I … share” ; “I think” ; “I like” ; “I love”. Also, I find intentional colloquialism and qualifiers warm as well (excluding slang, though I think that a personal quirk): ”… stuff” ; “that’s just … some things” ; “It’s weird” ; “sort of” ; “it’s just” ; “Hmm” ; “kind of”.
Example Comment: There are far too many solar flares on Sol, due to reason X. They can be reduced by measure Y, but it will cost many thousands of kangaroos, which Australians support but no other country will help in the measure’s implementation.
Warm Critique A: I had heard of reason X as well, but I found out that actually reason X is not as logically sound as ’twas thought to be. The base premise that derives reason X was disproved in experiment Z, which you can read a summary of here: , or read in full here: . [Optionally insert comment intended to be slightly humorous for extra warmth, especially if the comment ends with an exclamation mark, here.]
Cold Critique B: There is no viable way of implementing measure Y, as shown here: _; Australia is unsupported in finding a partner for research into potential methods for the implementation of Y, and not just unsupported in the implementation itself (which is currently impossible in the first place). Australia’s government probably suffer from the sunk cost fallacy due to all the resources they invested in the inevitably worthless kangaroo solution; they refuse to terminate the project.
Warm Response to B: Yeah, that was a prime example of the sunk cost fallacy, wasn’t it? Or amusing, at least. Fortunately for Australia’s government, reason X proved to have little supporting fact (see my comment here: _ for details). They were able to quit the project without much backlash in the end!
Cold Response to ↑: Ah, so they did. Though I’d hardly call it a prime example of the sunk cost fallacy. They did have some reason to think it a worthwhile pursuit.
Alternative Warm Version of ↑: Oh, I didn’t know that; thanks for the update[. or !] To be fair to Australia’s government, they had little reason to think the impossibility of measure Y bore poorly upon reason X; though, of course, ’tis debatable whether reason X justified the amount invested into researching alternative methods for implementing measure Y. In any regard, it’s not clear to what degree they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy, if indeed at all. [Optionally conclude with an appeal for correction if one’s reasoning is mistaken, exempli gratia: “Do you think that’s a reasonable account, or have I erred or overlooked something?” This tact could be taken as passive aggression, so use with care.]
Of course I could be misrepresenting the two, or am poorly calibrated. Let the alt text of the Karma score of this comment inform its perceived accuracy.
This seems like a reasonable set of examples, though I’m not someone who was concerned by a lack of warmth, so not ideal to judge who well you’ve understood their critique.
My only concern is that you might have been unfair to the warmth side, as your cold responses look much better—I’d much rather have them, efficient, information dense and clear as they are.
I upvoted you for giving the examples. Though, given that I mostly share Michelle’s… let’s say difficulty with the concepts, I can’t quite tell if they’re correct examples :-)
Hmm, I kind of agree with Larks, I think I tend to prefer “colder” discussions (in general, not just your examples). I like jokes, and the occasional affectation (like the “’twas” you used there), and I love people mixing seriousness and funny stuff as long as the serious part remains mostly correct (like that formal ecological analysis of the prey-predator dynamics in Buffy that circulated at one point on the net), but few people can keep that up all the time, and I get really off-put when things become wordy just to avoid “touchy-feely”(x) people getting offended.
(x: I don’t mean that deprecatingly, that’s just the label my brain attaches to some things. It’s weird, I sort of theoretically agree with what (seems to me) is the general-population idea that coldness is bad and warmth is nice, it’s just that in practice it often annoys me. Though I’m also annoyed by intentional cold comments (acid sarcasm and the like), which get the “bad touchy-feely” label.)
I can’t tell what practical lessons to draw from this. Personally, other than adding a smiley or an exclamation mark now and then I don’t really know how to make myself not sound cold.
I thought this a warm response, probably due to the use of words that convey emotion: “I … share” ; “I think” ; “I like” ; “I love”. Also, I find intentional colloquialism and qualifiers warm as well (excluding slang, though I think that a personal quirk): ”… stuff” ; “that’s just … some things” ; “It’s weird” ; “sort of” ; “it’s just” ; “Hmm” ; “kind of”.
Caveat: Overuse of qualifiers can become grating.