But unfortunately sometimes that backfires when the person you’re directing the question at interprets the guesses as a way to make them look bad,
I think you’ve left out context in your description of the problem, and part of the ineffectiveness of “I’m curious why …” comes from not acknowledging the context.
From your description, it sounds like the context is a disagreement, where you’re asking for an explanation of a person’s position. To say “I’m curious why you believe X” turns the person you’re asking into a curiosity, and fails to acknowledge the disagreement. Add the tone to the lack of honest acknowledge of the disagreement, and it starts to seem rather dismissive.
Instead. “You believe X. I believe not_X. This is why I believe not_X. ….. Why do you believe X?”
Acknowledge the disagreement. Frame it in symmetric terms. Put your cards on the table. Ask the other person to do the same.
Each step accomplishes something positive. I asked a question in that way once in a monthly political thread, and thought the responses were much more informative than I usually mange to elicit.
To say “I’m curious why you believe X” turns the person you’re asking into a curiosity
Being curious about someone’s reasons is bad because it turns them into “a curiosity”? I don’t understand… If I’m curious about string theory, does that turn string theory into a curiosity? Obviously not, but what’s the difference?
Thinking it over… Is it that the statement seems to be implying that I have no reason to learn their reasons except to satisfy an idle curiosity?
ETA: And here I was, thinking that by “I’m curious” I was indicating that I would value the other person’s answers highly and was ready to change my mind based on their answers. Damn...
As I note below, it almost feels like an established idiom to me, but I’m on the fringe of the human distribution, so I’d recommend you look for more corroboration.
First, when you have a disagreement, people are likely to interpret what you say in a poor light.
I’d add that the people on Less Wrong are highly unrepresentative of most people. We like to think, we like to argue, we like to discuss ideas, we like intellectual back and forth. Most people just aren’t like that, and particularly not with people like us.
Maybe most people feel threatened when asked to justify their beliefs. Because they can’t do it. Because they can’t separate a judgment on their ideas from a judgment on themselves—can’t separate the sin from the sinner. Others are simply authoritarian types, and believe their higher status makes it rude and impertinent to question their beliefs.
We have a “find the truth” mentality. I don’t think most people are like that. Ideas are signaling. To ask people to explain is to threaten to expose them as intellectual frauds. They don’t share that value, but they feel the threat, knowing that others do, and in particular, you do.
I’m massively generalizing, and probably overstating the case, but I think there is truth in what I’m saying.
Some people just don’t have the relationship to ideas that you do. And whether someone does or doesn’t, they’ll be hypervigilant to threat from your comments in the context of a disagreement. If it can be interpreted in a negative light, it likely will be.
I think you’ve left out context in your description of the problem, and part of the ineffectiveness of “I’m curious why …” comes from not acknowledging the context.
From your description, it sounds like the context is a disagreement, where you’re asking for an explanation of a person’s position. To say “I’m curious why you believe X” turns the person you’re asking into a curiosity, and fails to acknowledge the disagreement. Add the tone to the lack of honest acknowledge of the disagreement, and it starts to seem rather dismissive.
Instead. “You believe X. I believe not_X. This is why I believe not_X. ….. Why do you believe X?”
Acknowledge the disagreement. Frame it in symmetric terms. Put your cards on the table. Ask the other person to do the same.
Each step accomplishes something positive. I asked a question in that way once in a monthly political thread, and thought the responses were much more informative than I usually mange to elicit.
Being curious about someone’s reasons is bad because it turns them into “a curiosity”? I don’t understand… If I’m curious about string theory, does that turn string theory into a curiosity? Obviously not, but what’s the difference?
Thinking it over… Is it that the statement seems to be implying that I have no reason to learn their reasons except to satisfy an idle curiosity?
ETA: And here I was, thinking that by “I’m curious” I was indicating that I would value the other person’s answers highly and was ready to change my mind based on their answers. Damn...
To me it looks a bit as if it’s not asking “what is the evidence for X?”, but “what is wrong with you that makes you think X?”
Literally, it doesn’t mean that, but your interpretation almost feels like an established idiom to me. Anyone else have the same feeling?
Add a glib, condescending, and dismissive sneer for full effect.
As I note below, it almost feels like an established idiom to me, but I’m on the fringe of the human distribution, so I’d recommend you look for more corroboration.
First, when you have a disagreement, people are likely to interpret what you say in a poor light.
I’d add that the people on Less Wrong are highly unrepresentative of most people. We like to think, we like to argue, we like to discuss ideas, we like intellectual back and forth. Most people just aren’t like that, and particularly not with people like us.
Maybe most people feel threatened when asked to justify their beliefs. Because they can’t do it. Because they can’t separate a judgment on their ideas from a judgment on themselves—can’t separate the sin from the sinner. Others are simply authoritarian types, and believe their higher status makes it rude and impertinent to question their beliefs.
We have a “find the truth” mentality. I don’t think most people are like that. Ideas are signaling. To ask people to explain is to threaten to expose them as intellectual frauds. They don’t share that value, but they feel the threat, knowing that others do, and in particular, you do.
I’m massively generalizing, and probably overstating the case, but I think there is truth in what I’m saying.
Some people just don’t have the relationship to ideas that you do. And whether someone does or doesn’t, they’ll be hypervigilant to threat from your comments in the context of a disagreement. If it can be interpreted in a negative light, it likely will be.