Sure but that might be because by phrasing it like that you are already priming by mentioning condescending.
Some people seem to be permanently primed to view any kind of explanation condescending, whether it’s the arrogance of the youth or some kind of trauma or maybe result of being under high stress. Other people (like me) tend to have obsessive compulsive explanatory thoughts, so I’m almost always in the state of explaining something. Most likely just to myself because I’m alone.
(…aaand, here we go again, I’m explaining stuff to the Internet now.)
The act of explaining something in a situation that does not prompt explanation, or in a way that does not adapt the explanation properly to the “explainee’s” state of mind and curiosity, thus either wasting time or creating a situation when the lack of understanding on part of “explainee” is likely to be viewed as lack of intellect, while the true answer might be just lack of truly giving a fuck about the specific focus of the explanation.
Explaining just for the sake of being the explainer (whether the motivation to be the explainer in the first place is a social game of status or rather a side effect of perpetual state of learning by Fenyman method) can be a risky move, but I think that in many cases it’s more about the content of the explanation: is it a monologue or a true interaction? is it adjusted to the context? Is it accurate?
But I think what makes bad explanation infuriating is often what would make any interaction infuriating. And the word “condescending” is sometimes used just because of the context of explanation, while the real problem is that the speaker is just off in their own world, and not realizing it.
Sure but that might be because by phrasing it like that you are already priming by mentioning condescending.
Some people seem to be permanently primed to view any kind of explanation condescending, whether it’s the arrogance of the youth or some kind of trauma or maybe result of being under high stress. Other people (like me) tend to have obsessive compulsive explanatory thoughts, so I’m almost always in the state of explaining something. Most likely just to myself because I’m alone.
(…aaand, here we go again, I’m explaining stuff to the Internet now.)
The act of explaining something in a situation that does not prompt explanation, or in a way that does not adapt the explanation properly to the “explainee’s” state of mind and curiosity, thus either wasting time or creating a situation when the lack of understanding on part of “explainee” is likely to be viewed as lack of intellect, while the true answer might be just lack of truly giving a fuck about the specific focus of the explanation.
Explaining just for the sake of being the explainer (whether the motivation to be the explainer in the first place is a social game of status or rather a side effect of perpetual state of learning by Fenyman method) can be a risky move, but I think that in many cases it’s more about the content of the explanation: is it a monologue or a true interaction? is it adjusted to the context? Is it accurate?
But I think what makes bad explanation infuriating is often what would make any interaction infuriating. And the word “condescending” is sometimes used just because of the context of explanation, while the real problem is that the speaker is just off in their own world, and not realizing it.