So there's a particular kind of response to things on social media that I've had a hard time putting a name to, but now I think I have it figured out: Clarification Trolling.
Related:
Never Complain, Never Explain
WhatAboutism
Tone Trolling
Clarification Trolling occurs when someone responds to something you've written with an implied or explicit accusation that you are not aiming your comments at appropriate targets. They will often expect or even demand a long list of situations in which your comments would or would not apply and why or why not. In essence, they demand unreasonable clarifications. When people demand clarification on an item beyond what a reasonable person would want given the context, they are Clarification Trolling. I consider this a kind of accusatory StrawMan fallacy.
It's best understood in an example.
I wrote about the 'Four Reasons Patients are 'NonCompliant' with Rehab'. I listed out the four broad areas and within a few minutes I had a Clarification Troll respond with 'I think people are more complicated than those four reasons.' Now, think a minute about why I would have written the Four Reasons item - was it because in all the world, in all the people and situations in it, did I imagine there were only four highly specific reasons someone would not comply with their rehab plan? Or was I writing four generalized reasons that clinicians could think about and try to apply to better serve their patients? Is clarification really needed here, or is someone applying an accusatory straw man argument?
Like most cases of trolling, this exists on a continuum and there are valid reasons why someone would seek clarification on your meaning. Like the Tone Troll, there are valid cases of complaint - but they are extremely rare and heavily outweighed by cases of trolling and arguing in bad faith.
Coach Nick Tumminello has a 'one clarification' guideline here - after writing an item, if someone has a specific issue and appears to need clarification he will provide one good faith effort attached to the item as an addendum or comment but then nothing further.
I will go one further than Coach Nick and say I routinely ignore this sort of behavior and I think you should too. Much like other trolls, responding to this only weakens what you've written. If you've truly written a context-free, unclear item that appears overly broad to a reasonable person standard you should just take down the comment or item and rephrase it.
If you're satisfied that a reasonable person would not require that kind of clarification, feel free to consider the comment trolling and move on. As with other cases of trolling, don't apply the label to anyone who questions or disagrees with you but think carefully about the situation and the 'reasonable person standard.'
Related:
Never Complain, Never Explain
WhatAboutism
Tone Trolling
Clarification Trolling occurs when someone responds to something you've written with an implied or explicit accusation that you are not aiming your comments at appropriate targets. They will often expect or even demand a long list of situations in which your comments would or would not apply and why or why not. In essence, they demand unreasonable clarifications. When people demand clarification on an item beyond what a reasonable person would want given the context, they are Clarification Trolling. I consider this a kind of accusatory StrawMan fallacy.
It's best understood in an example.
I wrote about the 'Four Reasons Patients are 'NonCompliant' with Rehab'. I listed out the four broad areas and within a few minutes I had a Clarification Troll respond with 'I think people are more complicated than those four reasons.' Now, think a minute about why I would have written the Four Reasons item - was it because in all the world, in all the people and situations in it, did I imagine there were only four highly specific reasons someone would not comply with their rehab plan? Or was I writing four generalized reasons that clinicians could think about and try to apply to better serve their patients? Is clarification really needed here, or is someone applying an accusatory straw man argument?
Like most cases of trolling, this exists on a continuum and there are valid reasons why someone would seek clarification on your meaning. Like the Tone Troll, there are valid cases of complaint - but they are extremely rare and heavily outweighed by cases of trolling and arguing in bad faith.
Coach Nick Tumminello has a 'one clarification' guideline here - after writing an item, if someone has a specific issue and appears to need clarification he will provide one good faith effort attached to the item as an addendum or comment but then nothing further.
I will go one further than Coach Nick and say I routinely ignore this sort of behavior and I think you should too. Much like other trolls, responding to this only weakens what you've written. If you've truly written a context-free, unclear item that appears overly broad to a reasonable person standard you should just take down the comment or item and rephrase it.
If you're satisfied that a reasonable person would not require that kind of clarification, feel free to consider the comment trolling and move on. As with other cases of trolling, don't apply the label to anyone who questions or disagrees with you but think carefully about the situation and the 'reasonable person standard.'
Comment