Ran across this

https://twitter.com/tkadlec/status/639970222368100352

 

People using ambiguous mediums think they are communicating clearly because they know what they mean to say, receivers are unable to get this meaning accurately but are certain they have interpreted the message accurately, and both are amazed that the other side can be so stupid.

 

Which is apparently a quote from Mindwise by Nicholas Epley

 

Anyway, this was fresh on my mind from a recent thread. It's probably more on point for topics where opinions are being discussed, but perhaps only marginally. The thing we tend to forget is that while we have access to everything that puts a statement in context (what we've read, what we've experienced) others do not. So far too often what you write or say isn't what you actually meant, or isn't unambiguously so. People with different biases and perspectives can read the same statement in different ways, so you can never legitimately take the attitude that your message has been so clearly communicated that nobody could possibly interpret it in any way other than how you meant it.

So, instead of Dunning-Kruger, perhaps we call this Bungling-Reviewer.

So, instead of Dunning-Kruger, perhaps we call this Bungling-Reviewer.

 

 

The angry response to a simple question (and subsequent evasion), is good rule of thumb as to which is which.