"used to" is basically the same thing as "in on it".
Moreover, context matters a lot with language style. One can't just lift Feynman's way of talking, transplant it somewhere else and expect it to be effective.
You have incorrectly interpreted the thread. It literally starts with Feynman saying, "That's stupid," and the subsequent poster claims that it is to be implied the idea is stupid, not the person. I point out that lacking "that idea", it becomes code.
It's not code. "That's stupid" is short for "that idea is stupid." There's no way to change it to "that idea is stupid and therefore you are too" without the person making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure someone is to assume that.
It's not much of a leap. "Stupid" is a judgement of intelligence. Ideas don't have intelligence, people do.
To say something is "stupid" is to say that's it's the product of unintelligent thinking. Somebody calling my idea "stupid" may not be saying that I'm universally stupid, but they're at least saying that I was momentarily stupid to suggest that idea. Same thing if you call my idea "retarded" or "idiotic", or conversely, "smart" or "clever".
The argument could be made that we should all be rational beings of pure logic, incapable of taking personal offense or being emotionally slighted or discouraged by such judgements. But we're not. And if we were, we would also be capable of limiting our output to objective conclusions such as "that won't work" rather than subjective judgements such as "it was foolish to suggest that it could".
> The argument could be made that we should all be rational beings of pure logic, incapable of taking personal offense or being emotionally slighted or discouraged by such judgements. But we're not.
Which is exactly why it is fine to call an idea stupid. Everyone knows that people are fallible, so they know that your idea can be stupid without you being stupid. You taking that personally is stupid though, as it implies you think it is possible to be infallible.
> without the person making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure someone is to assume that.
Not necessarily. There are social environments where things aren't said directly, but rather communicated through choice of words, body language and actions. People can make their thoughts abundantly clear without saying them directly, and some would expect you to understand even if they don't communicate it directly.
Figuring out if a person/group says things directly or indirectly is part of the code. It's not necessarily about insecurity. Even a person secure in their own abilities can benefit from understanding when people communicate heavily between the lines.
I think this is moving the goalposts. Yes, I agree that nonverbal communication matters. And I understand it's possible there is some code to communication, similar to how different cultures use words differently. But that's not what's being discussed.
"That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone. You need to invent additional context to interpret this differently.
> But that's not what's being discussed. "That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone.
What I meant is that people don't only ever say you're stupid by super-directly saying "you're stupid". "That's stupid" is not a big leap. Yes, context is key to interpretation.
It's clearly talking about the idea. No one says "That's X" when referring to someone. When someone shows me a painting and I say "That's beautiful", I'm obviously referring to the painting, right?
If you show someone a painting you made and they tell you "That's beautiful", you may reasonably conclude that they think you're a good painter.
Similarly, if you come up with an idea and someone tells you it's stupid, you might conclude (especially if it's a recurring pattern) that they don't think you are very smart. If that is not the conclusion they wanted you to come to, it is on them for not communicating better
> So there is a chance “that’s beautiful” means that the person showing him the painting is beautiful?
No, but I think the choice of adjective is important.
Suppose instead of saying "That's a beautiful painting" I said "That's a masterful painting".
The sentence structure is the same. The adjective is still modifying "painting". I'm still saying the painting is good. But the word I chose more directly implies a judgement of the artist: I am describing the painting as the product of a master painter.
I get the same impression from hearing "stupid idea". Stupid is a description of intelligence, thinking ability, aptitude: attributes which lie with the idea's originator, not with the idea itself.
You are free to say whatever you want and speak however you like. Just remember not everyone fills in the blanks the same way, and when being critical it is important to be specific. If that bothers you and you want to grind away at it to prove your way of speaking is correct, good luck with that. I hope you end up working with people who feel the same way.
You didn't answer the question, and instead leapt to something hand wavey about how people fill in blanks.
Nobody is grinding away at anything, perhaps other than yourself. It seems many people here are mystified by your unyielding interpretation of a two word sentence and nobody can seem to get a straight answer out of you, other than repeating the truism that "it's not obvious".
If I throw a bad pass in a ball game, and it gets called out as such, does that imply that they consider me a 'bad person'? Possibly some totally irredeemable piece of shit that should be locked up and not around children?
Or is a bad pass, like a the bad idea thrown out there, just that?
Ok first - no it doesn't make you an irredeemable piece of shit or a bad person. But if you do it in a weird way it does mean that you're someone who's lacking in social skills. We're talking in abstract ideas so I can't possibly know what you meant but:
blitzar: what the fuck is wrong with you, smcl, that's two goals you've cost us because you lost your man
and
blitzar: for fuck's sake, smcl, focus, watch #11 he's killing us with those runs. we're not out of the game but you need to step it up
are two ways you as a teammate could probably admonish me for costing our team a couple of goals. Both involve swearing, both are blunt and establish some fault. One is useless ranting, and will probably heap misery on the teammate and make them wish for the final whistle. The other is relatively productive and could possibly help (depending on how useless or hungover I am). So it depends, if by "called out" you mean something like #1 then I strongly disagree. If it's #2 then cool, I'd like you as a teammate :)
But on that original topic, I think that when someone says they think "that's a stupid idea" is unconstructive or damaging, it doesn't mean they want to be coddled, given a treat and told they're special. It just means that's a needlessly confrontational approach. If that person at the top of this thread is really on the same wavelength with some people that they can openly talk like that, more power to them. But I suspect what's actually happening is a handful of students were talking that way, and most people secretly resented it and didn't enjoy being around them because of how they acted.
Then again, if it's coming from Feynmann I imagine there's something in the tone, delivery or context that would soften the blow :)
However, unless one is used to this frank style of communication, I'm sure it can be off-putting.