|
|
|
How is this a featured blog? Im sorry i dont see anything special here
|
Not mean to be disrespectful, just wondering
|
Because he is a featured blogger, therefore all his blogs are featured
|
On June 13 2013 17:56 Orangered wrote:
How is this a featured blog? Im sorry i dont see anything special here
Featured blogs are about the poster's continuous quality content, not a particular post.
On topic:
Enjoy Catch-22 its a pretty good book and I still tell people exactly what time it is if they ask. If you ask for the time you get the time. 
|
Sounds like a mildly autistic trait.
Almost like you didn't differentiate context, I know some people like this, mainly from when I did physics at university. They would berate you for using 'weight' inappropriately despite the context not requiring an exact definition, similar to grammar nazi's I suppose, unless your writing requires accurate grammar for clarity then there is no need to be so strict, if no confusion is caused then there isn't a problem.
'Everyday' context doesn't require precision, its erroneous information that our brains naturally filter out (or not in your case). If you tell me its 18:18 I think 18:20 in most situations, the exception being specific situations where more precision is required.
I suppose context in itself can cause confusion, its a concept people seem to struggle with academically, despite showing quite a subtle understanding of it in their behavior, I suppose that's because we're social creatures and context is absolutely crucial to good social skills which for us translates to success most of the time but actually understanding these things in an academic sense can actually be quite challenging as it requires you to place yourself outside of your own behavior which is perhaps a leap too far for some.
Anyway with regards to numbers, I've never understood the fascination, I guess it must be psychological, to me they're just a tool, like money, useful for solving a problem or achieving a goal but with little about them themselves that makes them interesting. At the same time we do seem to have some sort of natural draw towards numbers in some senses so its probably more subtle than I give it credit.
|
If I tell you it's 2:18 and you only wanted to know the time at a precision of 5 minutes, then you should still immediately know that it's past 2:15 and before 2:20. Assuming you're not stupid, no harm has been done and in the case that you wanted a more specific time (could be very relevant in the context of train schedules and the likes, or maybe you want to talk for another minute or two before you have to be back for the next lesson) you already got it. What's wrong with precise answers if they require no additional effort (saying "2:18" also hardly takes longer than saying "2:20")? Also there's no reason why I should do the conversion from 2:18 into the next multiple of 5s (which is totally arbitrary anyways) for you since you are the one who asked.
|
The reason people don't give the exact time is because they have an analog watch. I think all kids with a digital watch gave the exact time.
I have a habit of guessing what time it is to buy time while I pull out my mp3 player and turn it on, making a game of it. Usually I'm pretty accurate.
Numbers are good. If you can say '18 past' at least in English that's perfectly natural. If you want to round and be a super wizard, you can say quarter to, quarter past, half past etc. I think it would only be weird if you told people 'let's meet at 22 past.' In our modern, advanced and civilized world we must only meet at quarters of the hour, preferably halves.
Say what you want Haji! Your elementary school experience was just people looking for something to say / tease you about.
|
I think it's strange that you decided to be less precise, at least in terms of giving time, at the same that you decided to be more deliberate with your word choice. At some point I decided that (the English) language had too much ambiguity and so I made a point to be more deliberate and precise with what words I'm using. It doesn't mean that I can't deduce meaning from context, but I'd rather not leave it to the individual to determine precisely what I mean.
On June 13 2013 20:04 adwodon wrote:
Sounds like a mildly autistic trait.
Almost like you didn't differentiate context, I know some people like this, mainly from when I did physics at university. They would berate you for using 'weight' inappropriately despite the context not requiring an exact definition, similar to grammar nazi's I suppose, unless your writing requires accurate grammar for clarity then there is no need to be so strict, if no confusion is caused then there isn't a problem.
There's a time for context and there's a time for precise definition. If you're in physics class and using 'weight' inappropriately then you should not complain about someone correcting you. This term has a precise meaning in physics and relying on context to convey your meaning can lead to pitfalls. Using the correct term for what you're saying is just as important as using units with your numbers.
Also, I find it strange that you immediately think that this is an "autistic" trait and follow it with examples from people you know in physics class.
|
On June 13 2013 20:45 spinesheath wrote:
If I tell you it's 2:18 and you only wanted to know the time at a precision of 5 minutes, then you should still immediately know that it's past 2:15 and before 2:20. Assuming you're not stupid, no harm has been done and in the case that you wanted a more specific time (could be very relevant in the context of train schedules and the likes, or maybe you want to talk for another minute or two before you have to be back for the next lesson) you already got it. What's wrong with precise answers if they require no additional effort (saying "2:18" also hardly takes longer than saying "2:20")? Also there's no reason why I should do the conversion from 2:18 into the next multiple of 5s (which is totally arbitrary anyways) for you since you are the one who asked.
The problem isn't that the asker has to convert, it's that you're for some reason looking up the precise time instead of just saying the closest multiple of 5/10 which is far faster. If it's 2:28, I'm going to say 2:30 because it comes to mind faster, not because I want to save the listener time by converting for him.
|
On June 13 2013 22:59 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 20:45 spinesheath wrote:
If I tell you it's 2:18 and you only wanted to know the time at a precision of 5 minutes, then you should still immediately know that it's past 2:15 and before 2:20. Assuming you're not stupid, no harm has been done and in the case that you wanted a more specific time (could be very relevant in the context of train schedules and the likes, or maybe you want to talk for another minute or two before you have to be back for the next lesson) you already got it. What's wrong with precise answers if they require no additional effort (saying "2:18" also hardly takes longer than saying "2:20")? Also there's no reason why I should do the conversion from 2:18 into the next multiple of 5s (which is totally arbitrary anyways) for you since you are the one who asked. The problem isn't that the asker has to convert, it's that you're for some reason looking up the precise time instead of just saying the closest multiple of 5/10 which is far faster. If it's 2:28, I'm going to say 2:30 because it comes to mind faster, not because I want to save the listener time by converting for him.
This isn't always true any longer, I more often see a digital time than an analogue clock one. This means it takes time for me to convert it to 15 or 20 compared to just writing whatever it is. If that is the only criteria it should vary depending on which clock you are looking at.
|
I can see the case for calling time to the closest quarter. Sometimes it's fewer syllables, other times it's an analog clock and one can't be bothered looking as far as the closest minute. But when I look at my clock and it says "11:53," I think, "great, I can squeeze two minutes in before 11:55."
The accuracy of the time is only relevant when you're going to use those two minutes.
I like this blog.
|
I do that sometimes too, but was never mocked for it ever. Sometimes I just say it's "about [12:20]" instead of direct statement if I'm rounding the time though. But while reading the second part, all I could think of was Team America
" Kim Jong Il: It will be 911 times 2356.
Chris: My God, that's... I don't even know what that is!
Kim Jong Il: Nobody does! "
|
I'd rather be too precise nine out of ten times than too vague once. There are times when you absolutely need accuracy down to the minute so unless I'm pretty sure it's unnecessary I'd rather just give the exact time.
|
Yeah I think it depends on the watch like Yurie said. When I was growing up I had a digital watch, so I told people the exact time because it was easiest. Forcing yourself to round is silly in that case because it only gives the person less information for no good reason. If you have a crappy analog watch though, then you have to guess the time  .
|
If I'd get mocked in that situation I'd tell them it's 2:24 next time, when confused I'd tell them that it's just the same as 2:20 so it shouldn't matter whether I said 2:18 or 2:24.
|
In Polish, the phrase we use to ask for time literally translated is "which hour is it?". When asked this, my middle school friend would always answer literally - at 2:18 he would answer it's 2, same at 2:46 or 2:59.
|
that'd be 2:25 or 2:30
we like to round up
don't want to be late
I am an exact sort of man as well, so don't feel bad. I would actually get mad at people using halves/quarters as a kid, and demand the exact time, however irrelevant. Time Nazi
|
Time nazi, or just exactness nazi in general. Whenever someone doesn't explain something to me exactly, I get annoyed. I would always spend too much time over explaining things and sending people to sleep. Over the years I got used to being more general about things because it was more normal.
Its a trait of autism though, and you probably have some mild autism, which isn't an issue really, it just means you have a different way of doing things to the absolute norm.
|
I just couldn't get all the way through Catch-22, and I really tried.
After a while I just kept thinking: "yes, yes, I get it, move on!"
Im very non specific with numbers which isn't the best trait in a design engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
