Charitable interpretation of komponisto’s comment: ‘If a human didn’t care about social status except instrumentally, what would be the psychiatric classification for them?’ (Charitable interpretation of nshepperd’s comment: ‘Outside of fiction, such people are so vanishingly rare that it’d be pointless to introduce a word for them.’)
Charitable interpretation of komponisto’s comment: ‘If a human didn’t care about social status except instrumentally, what would be the psychiatric classification for them?’ (Charitable interpretation of nshepperd’s comment: ‘Outside of fiction, such people are so vanishingly rare that it’d be pointless to introduce a word for them.’)
I’m afraid the first interpretation is incompatible with this comment (because the Joker reference conveys significant information). Actually, this does qualify as a charitable interpretation of something kompo made elsewhere (grand-neice comment or something). This distinction matters primarily in as much as it means you have given a highly uncharitable interpretation of nshepperd’s comment. By simple substitution it would mean you interpret him as saying:
‘Outside of fiction, [people who do not care about social status except instrumentally] are so vanishingly rare that it’d be pointless to introduce a word for them.’)
Rather than being clearly correct nshepperd becomes probably incorrect. Many (or most) people with autism could fit that description for a start.
Charitable interpretation of komponisto’s comment: ‘If a human didn’t care about social status except instrumentally, what would be the psychiatric classification for them?’
I’m afraid the first interpretation is incompatible with this comment (because the Joker reference conveys significant information).
It was not intended to do so; army1987′s paraphrase is correct.
The thought in my original comment would have been better expressed as: “Sometimes I wonder if the only people who aren’t motivated by status are antisocial.”
It was not intended to do so; army1987′s paraphrase is correct.
This intent does not make the paraphrase correct, even within the scope of ‘charitable’. More to the point, it does prevent the paraphrase of nshepperd’s comment from being uncharitable. Army1987 put words in nsheppard’s mouth that are probably wrong rather than the obviously correct statement he actually made. He described this process as ‘charitable’. It is the reverse.
(I’m not sure if I’m mistaken about the following interpretation and you instead mean that this particular intent doesn’t make the paraphrase (of komponisto’s comment) correct; in that case I’m not following what you are saying at all.)
I expect the intended meaning of “correct” was correspondence with intended meaning. In this sense, the intent is relevant, and it seems that the paraphrase does correspond to the intended meaning as described by komponisto in grandparent.
Army1987 put words in nsheppard’s mouth that are probably wrong rather than the obviously correct statement he actually made.
The grandparent is talking only about army1987′s paraphrase of komponisto’s comment, not about the paraphrase of nsheppard’s comment (which I agree is better described as “uncharitable”), so I’m not seeing the relevance of this statement in a reply to grandparent. (Disagree with some connotations of “obviously correct” in the quote, as the case is not that clear overall, even as it is pretty clear in one sense.)
The statement he actually made—taken literally and ignoring the poor example komponisto had chosen, as the “someone like” makes clear that it was intended to be just an example—is that the word he would use for “someone who cares not at all how they fit into or are perceived by human society, except as instrumental to gaining whatever (non-human-relationship-based) thrill or fix they are after” is “fictional”. How is that “obviously correct”?
Charitable interpretation of komponisto’s comment: ‘If a human didn’t care about social status except instrumentally, what would be the psychiatric classification for them?’ (Charitable interpretation of nshepperd’s comment: ‘Outside of fiction, such people are so vanishingly rare that it’d be pointless to introduce a word for them.’)
I’m afraid the first interpretation is incompatible with this comment (because the Joker reference conveys significant information). Actually, this does qualify as a charitable interpretation of something kompo made elsewhere (grand-neice comment or something). This distinction matters primarily in as much as it means you have given a highly uncharitable interpretation of nshepperd’s comment. By simple substitution it would mean you interpret him as saying:
Rather than being clearly correct nshepperd becomes probably incorrect. Many (or most) people with autism could fit that description for a start.
It was not intended to do so; army1987′s paraphrase is correct.
The thought in my original comment would have been better expressed as: “Sometimes I wonder if the only people who aren’t motivated by status are antisocial.”
This intent does not make the paraphrase correct, even within the scope of ‘charitable’. More to the point, it does prevent the paraphrase of nshepperd’s comment from being uncharitable. Army1987 put words in nsheppard’s mouth that are probably wrong rather than the obviously correct statement he actually made. He described this process as ‘charitable’. It is the reverse.
I was talking about my comment only; I make no claim that army1987′s paraphrase of nshepperd’s comment is likewise accurate.
(I’m not sure if I’m mistaken about the following interpretation and you instead mean that this particular intent doesn’t make the paraphrase (of komponisto’s comment) correct; in that case I’m not following what you are saying at all.)
I expect the intended meaning of “correct” was correspondence with intended meaning. In this sense, the intent is relevant, and it seems that the paraphrase does correspond to the intended meaning as described by komponisto in grandparent.
The grandparent is talking only about army1987′s paraphrase of komponisto’s comment, not about the paraphrase of nsheppard’s comment (which I agree is better described as “uncharitable”), so I’m not seeing the relevance of this statement in a reply to grandparent. (Disagree with some connotations of “obviously correct” in the quote, as the case is not that clear overall, even as it is pretty clear in one sense.)
The statement he actually made—taken literally and ignoring the poor example komponisto had chosen, as the “someone like” makes clear that it was intended to be just an example—is that the word he would use for “someone who cares not at all how they fit into or are perceived by human society, except as instrumental to gaining whatever (non-human-relationship-based) thrill or fix they are after” is “fictional”. How is that “obviously correct”?