Doorway effect(en.wikipedia.org) |
Doorway effect(en.wikipedia.org) |
private Boolean doorway_effect(Boolean tall_person, Boolean carrying_heavy_item, Boolean carrying_hot_drink, Boolean doorway_low)
Boolean bang_head = false;
if(tall_person && (carrying_heavy_item || carrying_hot_drink) && doorway_low) {
bang_head = true;
return bang_head;
}
Programming: Function call and state getting captured on a stack.
...am I the only one with tally marks on my hands?
(SCNR.)
It seems like the entire field is so overwhelmed with fake data and bullshit that it’s hard to separate anything that might actually be real.
So I'm going to say, yes, we can believe it.
Ours was in a room behind a doorframe without a door. If I was getting dressing supplies in a state of flow/on auto-pilot, more often than not, I would blank as soon as I went through that doorway and would have to actively think exactly what the hell I was there for.
Roughly speaking what is the total number of people in all studies pertaining to this claimed effect?
In four words, the above comment is: harsh, judgmental, not curious.
Below, I hope to (a) offer another point of view about how your comment may be perceived and (b) demonstrate to you that the sample sizes and replicated studies regarding the Doorway Theory are unimpressive.
First, you made this discussion personal, and it wasn't particularly constructive. It is hard to say what goals you might have, but if your goal is curious conversation, I don't think this is the way. Do you? What is your experience/philosophy/science of productive conversation? Based only on this interaction, I wonder if you may not have thought about this very much and/or you aren't putting it into practice and/or you're taking something out on me.
Second, the word "stereotypes" gets casually thrown around. Empirically, how often would you say that using it advances constructive conversation?
Third, using this definition of stereotype: "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." ... why would you think my view of this is "fixed" or unchanging? I don't see a rational reason for seeing that based on what I wrote.
Fourth, for people that think in a Bayesian way -- and I think such a model is fairly useful in modeling how people actually operate -- we all have priors. Please do not accuse me of stereotyping when I'm only sharing a prior. One key question is what we do with them as we gain more information.
Fifth, on what basis would you validly say that my prior regarding my confidence in psychological studies is an "over-broad stereotype"? I've tried, but I don't think you can. You can disagree with my prior -- that's fair game. And we can talk empirically and rationally about how/why we have different priors.
Sixth, your comment shifts away the context I intended (I hope it was clear given the context, but maybe it was not) and criticizes a straw man. You wrote "There is an absolutely vast literature studying the effects of context and context changes on many different forms of cognition, going back decades". Perhaps this literature is largely sound and replicable. But that's not what I was referring to here; I was discussing the Doorway Effect in particular. From what I've seen so far, there were two early studies, both at Notre Dame, consisting of about 90 people in total. This alone certainly isn't enough in my mind to give high credence to the results. At least one subsequent attempt to replicate was mixed. So, please don't tell me to "do some google scholar searches". That is rather presumptive.
Would you like to continue to discussion on a better foot going forward?
"Woking (WOH-king) n.
Standing in the kitchen wondering what you came in here for."
I have to admit that I thought the article was going to be about a different psychological quirk that I have noticed; the one where, for reasons unknown to me, people will congregate in hallways or stand in doorways to talk.
Does anyone else see this? Particularly at large gatherings like parties or company events? Is there a name for it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality
The "doorway effect" is a more everyday phenomenon. Interesting that the idea that transitions result in disorientation scales from the mundane to the religious.
Then when my dog got old and doolaly he started to do it.
Not just humans
Are chronically forgetful people aware of doorways that the rest of us are not?
Can doorways (that bring about the effect) be purely subjective and personal?
If a person is beset by an eternal blizzard of subjective doorways, does he give the appearance of dumbness?
Do those who habitually ignore doorways appear smarter?
Goal for the day: log into a server.
Why is that so complicated? hahahahahaha welcome to the corporation.
Yeah, I know, I am not allowed to like anything Cosby anymore...
In my experience the start page idea was a software implementation of "Doorway Effect". I always had to return to the desktop to have my "refrigerator logic" spin up.
> Needed to check something out in the backyard
> As I'm walking out, noticed the trash
> took the trash out
> wondered why I was standing in the backyard.
> noticed what I needed to check out on the way back
ADD life I suppose.
(George Carlin had that in one of his routines. “Where was I? Oh, I believe I was…” (steps over) “…right here.”)
Many physics, chemistry, and computer science studies suffer from these as well. Science is hard, and there are a lot of constraints on research. Typically the first finding is made with limited funding, meaning limited ability to do the study right. Also, usually there is no perfect study, just a balancing of different strengths and weaknesses. That is why in psychology and neuroscience research, we talk about converging evidence. 'Converging' here means evidence employing multiple modalities, measures, and procedures. This might mean combining evidence from animal and human models, molecular and neuroimaging, etc. Its messy stuff, and every approach has tradeoffs.
*Seeing a plausible mechanism underlying a theory isn’t enough. So I’m writing this comment as a placeholder. Who here has checked the source studies?*
You are writing a comment as a placeholder for what exactly? So far in your comment, it just seems like an excuse to bash on Psychology research, which is too often a cheap thrill here on HN, and usually from someone who has read little serious psychological research save the most flashy in-the-news findings.
*Roughly speaking what is the total number of people in all studies pertaining to this claimed effect?*
This appears to be a logical question, and within the immediate context, understandable. However, the more informed context would understand that the so-called "Doorway Effect" is just a specific example of a more general and prevalent cognitive phenomenon: The role of spatio-temporal context in memory and cognition.
You ask for specific sample sizes from studies that use tasks that look at the effect passing through doors, and well there may be just an of a few hundred.
But, I being somewhat knowledgeable int he field (PhD in memory research) would instead ask: What is it about doorways that could cause such an effect. Ah yes, it involves a change in the spatiotemporal context. What is the evidence that context changes impose costs to memory function? Well: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cont...
So many, for so long.. Its a HUGE literature. Point is, its not about doors, and this is just one finding in a long list of similar findings that created CONVERGING evidence of a phenomenon.
The acoustic component is worth diving into, to me, since this is a big trigger. If the space is too loud, or cacophonous, I end up starting to lose higher-order functioning and have to vacate or wear my earplugs/noise-canceling headphones and just cut myself off from the sound (makes my job pretty awkward at times, tbh)
Small spaces amplify this acoustic aversion for me, especially when there are already people occupying the area. It's not claustrophobia, more of a "my brain will try to focus on all sounds at once and get sensory overload, so I probably should not go/stay there."
Anyway, thanks for the food fir thought.
No, not the sexy kind, but a foul creature with bony limbs and ashen skin? The kind that snarls as you enter, like a beast about to pounce? The kind that roots you to the spot with its sunken, hypnotic eyes, rendering you unable to flee as you watch the hideous thing uncoil from the shadows? Has your heart started racing though your legs refuse to? Have you felt time slow as the creature crosses the room in the darkness of a blink?
Have you shuddered with fear when it places one clawed hand atop your head and another under your chin so it can tilt you, exposing your neck? Have you squirmed as its rough, dry tongue slides down your cheek, over your jaw, to your throat, in a slithering search that's seeking your artery? Have you felt its hot breath release in a hiss against your skin when it probes your pulse—the flow that leads to your brain? Has its tongue rested there, throbbing slightly as if savoring the moment? Have you then experienced a sinking, sucking blackness as you discover that not all vampires feed on blood—some feed on memories?
Well, have you?
Maybe not. But let me rephrase the question:
Have you ever walked into a room and suddenly forgotten why you came in?
https://old.reddit.com/r/shortscarystories/comments/1inv0n/n...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Do_in_the_Shadows_(TV_...
(Ctrl-F) "Colin Robinson"
Is the encounter with the vampire similar to forgetting why one came into a room because when encountering a vampire in a newly entered room you forget everything before that and focus on the vampire?
An antimeme is an idea with self-censoring properties; an idea which, by its intrinsic nature, discourages or prevents people from spreading it.
Antimemes are real. Think of any piece of information which you wouldn't share with anybody, like passwords, taboos and dirty secrets. Or any piece of information which would be difficult to share even if you tried: complex equations, very boring passages of text, large blocks of random numbers, and dreams...
But anomalous antimemes are another matter entirely. How do you contain something you can't record or remember? How do you fight a war against an enemy with effortless, perfect camouflage, when you can never even know that you're at war?
Welcome to the Antimemetics Division.
No, this is not your first day.For me it happens that I'm doing something on my phone, remember to do something else, switch apps to do it, and literally forget what it is. But by going back or checking the recent apps I find again the "trigger" of the original reminder.
For example, you are checking [social network] and you see a post that reminds you to go searching for [object]. You close the app, open the browser...and you try to remember what were you going to search. Just going back and seeing the social network posts you were watching will remind you again of it.
It's like the though's owner is the other situation/room, and as soon as you forget one you forget the other with it. Quite interesting
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zYY6Q4nRTS4
Probably a timeless phenomenon. But I wouldn’t be as good as Henry. I’d take the bucket to the well and eventually shout back up the way, “there’s a hole...!”
(What do you think he needed the water for anyway?)
Definitely. My wife and I have a running joke about it. I'll walk into the room, she says "What's up?" and I say "trying to find something and I forgot what it was. Hold on, let me go back to my office to remember."
I recently told someone, "I remember telling you, I was on the phone with you in X location and I recall telling you!"
That happens probably 50% of the time. And I wish that was an exaggeration.
Now if only I could turn off the "you must investigate X" shouting my brain randomly throws at me WITHOUT external stimuli.
Maybe with newer services that requires TOTP since day one is a possibility.
If my husband is at home then he tends to get in on the act, leading to conversations like "I should set a timer for five minutes." "You should set a timer for five minutes!" "I'm gonna set a timer for five minutes." "Didja set that timer for five minutes?" "I just set a timer for five minutes!" when I'm crossing from the kitchen to the living room and leaving some water to boil.
I had chalked it up to the familiarity of the places. I see the same things inside all the time, so one day's moments blend into the previous days' similar moments.
I find a related thing happens in places I visit a lot, like my church, where each time I go, the previous experiences layer on top of it. There just aren't quite enough of them there to crowd out what I'm trying to do this time.
What you’re describing is still a physical barrier but it’s not a literal door way.
You can almost hear the authors going "no, come back! It's real! Not pre-2010 trash psychology! This is not a corporate motivational speaker factoid!"
----
Seriously though, happens to me all the time. Not sure if just getting dotty. The connection between spatial presence and memory is an interesting one; see also Memory Palaces[1]
It makes me wonder if it's different for people totally blind since birth. Is the visual aspect important, or just the "spacial-ness"?
But we all have it.
Paraphrasing a theory I read ... somewhere; it comes from when we were furtive subterranean critters, where entering and leaving burrows resulted in the invalidation of whatever threat just was, (example: birds outside, snakes underground) and that clearing the decks to more efficiently deal with different threats in the new context included dumping short term memory.
That's actually what was most interesting to me about the ringworld series. Just an open conversation about how evolution has impacted action (however hokey it might be in the books, and ignoring the rishathra).
The "doorway effect" seems to be one expression of that larger phenomenon in which memory recall is largely influenced by the context in which it was encoded. It's the reason that if you're cramming for an exam, to the extent you can recreate the exact conditions of your study environment to mirror those of the test-taking environment, you'll do better.
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a27014
so a weird mix of being reminded about something that was about forgetting something. And it was one of those rare New Yorker cartoons that was actually funny.
It used to happen almost daily. I would get into my car reverse out of my driveway. I would drive towards my workplace for about 2 to 5 minutes until I hit first red traffic light and as I'm waiting at traffic lights I would get this sinking feeling that I'd forgotten to close my garage door.
This is despite the fact I do not have a remotely operated garage door it is manual. I have to reverse out of garage, get out of my car, manually close the garage door and get back into car and reverse out of driveway.
I would wrack my short term memory while sitting at traffic lights and have no recollection of closing the garage door. It was as if my journey (in my memory) would always begin with turning out of my driveway.
Nowadays I force myself to look over shoulder and check the garage door as I turn out of my driveway and onto the street.
When I tried LSD, I'd constantly forget where I was in the middle of sentences, because everything happening in my brain made it feel like way more time was passing than was actually. As a result it was harder to recall the topic of the sentence because it felt like many many topics ago.
I would describe it as "an entire universe happening each instant". It was honestly kind of cool.
Writing was far easier, because I'd always be looking at what I've already written, rather than trying to rely on my memory of what I've spoken.
Whatever you do, don't look in the mirror.
Why Walking Through a Doorway Makes You Forget (2011) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17921972 - Sept 2018 (5 comments)
The “Doorway Effect” – forgetting why you entered a room - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17328740 - June 2018 (130 comments)
A long time ago I read that if you are awakened and want to fall back asleep, you should picture yourself turning around, going through a door to your basement stairway and descending the steps towards the dark basement.
I tried forever to do this and couldn't, and thought it was something about this scenario specifically. But then years later, I learned about aphantasia and realized I can't actually picture anything at all. The doorway wasn't special.
Visualizing myself going through a doorway is difficult even for me. I think it's in part because it requires some creativity (compare "visualize yourself going through a doorway" as opposed to "visualize yourself going through the doorway of your childhood house"). The salient conceptual feature of a doorway is that it goes somewhere and so the prompt basically is asking you to imagine something without explicitly asking you. Even your example of the basement stairway is much easier for me to visualise, because the doorway has stairs after it.
Nope. Not doing that!
Sounds like nightmare city!
For some reason that sentence really irked the critical thinker in me. As if they have the schema for the human brain.
The doorway or (whatever) is already a natural traffic bottleneck. And these people are making it worse by stopping right in the middle of it.
I suspect it's because of this psychological effect. But it's so annoying that many people's response seems to be to stop in their tracks. Okay maybe you've forgotten why you went through this doorway. But have you also suddenly forgotten that you're in the middle of a crowd of people trying to move around? Apparently so.
[Spoilers - To avoid people having to watch the whole video, it's a Mitchell and Webb sketch about how clapping your hands against your thighs helps you locate books on a bookshelf. Towards the end of the video it shows how making a 'scissors' motion with your fingers helps you find scissors.
Although a joke, a physical motion like patting your flanks or making a scissors motion can help you keep your planned activity in mind]
I would agree in general, but I would like to see three or more, as well as variations to test the boundaries of this.
Things can go wrong in one or two studies, so having independent replication is needed to really cement things.
Do what now? Isn't the problem that it could have randomly happened (especially if people did a bunch of other similar studies that didn't observe an effect, and only these two were published)?
The ability to perform in spite of context changes improves over childhood into adolescence, but the costs remain there and will become more pronounced as working memory loads or task demands increase.
Those who design GUIs should really take this into account. When, for example, clicking on a menu replaces the whole screen, like a version of Windows experimented with on the start menu, the complete context change imposes real costs on cognition.
I apologize for not providing citations, but a google scholar search will quickly provide relevant materials; this comment was written from what I learned in my PhD studies on the development of memory.
(I'm long sighted and need glasses for reading and precision tasks).
If they didn't observe it, that would provide some level of falsifiability?
> What if I pass between two rooms that look identical? Has this been studied? (It seems to me that the underlying claim of episodic memory might not be able to tell a difference.)
There's a study listed on that page which observed that re-entering the same room did not improve recall.
Such spacial-based memory triggers I've also seen demonstrated by magician/skeptic Derren Brown, where recall of the participant is manipulated via location-based touch or gestures (both for remembering and forgetting things).
The problem with a single study of n=50 isn't the 50, it's that it's a single study.
Communication involves active participation from the audience, in that a receptive and curious audience can be expected to make a good-faith effort to intuit what a communicator means when parts of the communication are left vague. This of course means that miscommunication is always possible, but the alternative is being paralyzed by overcommunicating details which are in most cases obvious.
If you are hypothesizing that some element of the doorway might change their results, that's a totally valid hypothesis, but you've not given enough information for me to intuit what elements of the doorway you think might change results, i.e. you're not doing a better job than the original authors of the study in communicating.
And notably, underspecifying what they mean by "doorway" doesn't invalidate the study, it just limits what conclusions can be drawn from their observations. I feel I have enough information about what they mean by doorway to draw useful conclusions from these studies. Of course it's possible I'm wrong (i.e. miscommunication has occurred), but you haven't communicated anything to me that would lead me to believe there's an important element of their definition of "doorway" that I'm missing.
None of what I'm about to say is not meant to be harsh or insulting... I'm simply sharing a probabilistic estimate of how I view the situation so far. How you react will further refine my perspective.
I've developed antibodies to the word "pedantic", particularly when one leads with it. It seems that when people use the word, it has a tendency to make discussion harder. How often have you seen someone use the word and the conversation develop further into something interesting? Versus the opposite?
Using the word "pedantic" often gets perceived as a kind of slight. It is hard to say if the speaker realizes this consciously or not. It feels to me like it conveys a subtext, as if "why are you being so detailed about this?". This goes along with a general attitude of conveying less curiosity and more certainty. Speaking for myself, on forums such as this, I'd rather learn about other's perspectives and reasoning rather than discount them.
I don't like using "pedantic" when I want to encourage curious conversation. Speaking personally, when I hear it, it gives me the impression the other person is not demonstrating a mindset or vocabulary for the kind of communication that I find most valuable. I can relate: I'm hard for people to pin down: I've worked in too many industries and lived in too many places to be easily understood by any one frame of reference. The "me" of five years ago would have a hard time understanding the "me" of today. I'll give you an example: tell someone you think free will is an illusion and watch people's reactions. :)
I recognize what I'm saying, to some ears, could be construed as being anti-science or perhaps even pro-conspiracy theories. I can assure you that I don't hold such positions. I somewhat aspire to be a perfectly Bayesian agent but fall well short of course.
I simply want to add that I have a low-to-middling confidence in psychology based studies in general, at least out of the gate, until I dig into (or find someone else I trust who has) the study. You might say this is my attempt to strike a balance between epistemic optimism and pessimism. My "alarm bells" ring louder for studies that have some kind of "appealing" aspect like; e.g. "oh, that's why I forgot something when I walk into a new room". We simply cannot discount how many people latch onto studies because the result is self-serving.
As I get older, I see _tremendous_ value in considering large amounts of information but giving new information a very high _tentativeness_ score. I have a huge aversion to the i.e "recent information being novel and interesting effect". Some might call me too cautious -- people in the Silicon Valley ecosystem often would. People in more traditional industries would say exactly the opposite; e.g. that I'm "too worried" about ethics and AI.
How does the above sound to you?
Now, some particulars. I'm no expert, but I want to show why I'm skeptical after having read some details from Wikipedia article. It mentions two studies, both from Notre Dame, consisting of (A) 41 people and (B) 51 people. Then, it has an entry for another Notre Dame study without detail.
Then:
> In a 2021 study, researchers at Bond University tried to replicate the doorway effect in four experiments: in both physical rooms and virtual rooms, and both with and without the participants doing a “distractor task” (counting backwards). In one experiment -- in virtual rooms, and with a distractor task -- doorways caused a statistically significant increase in false positives (i.e., false memories), but not false negatives (i.e., forgetting). In the other three experiments, doorways had no effect. The researchers suggested that this was consistent with real life, in which "we might occasionally forget a single item we had in mind after walking into a new room but, crucially, this usually happens when we have other things on our mind . . . ."
This is the kind of replication problem that I'm talking about. The kind that makes credible and prolific psychologists be very careful to caveat their field. To quote Paul Bloom w.r.t. the field of psychology's state of understanding of the human mind, "A lot of our findings are not as robust as we thought they were" (from "What Do We Know About Our Minds?" with Sam Harris).
You're describing a correlation but haven't established causation. Is the causality:
someone using the word "pedantic" -> uninteresting conversation
Or could the causality be:
person being pedantic -> uninteresting conversation
AND
person being pedantic -> someone using the word "pedantic"
?
I have many experiences where a pedantic person shuts down a conversation and nobody uses the word "pedantic", so I feel there's strong evidence that pedantry, not the use of the word "pedantic", makes conversations uninteresting.
> Using the word "pedantic" often gets perceived as a kind of slight. It is hard to say if the speaker realizes this consciously or not. It feels to me like it conveys a subtext, as if "why are you being so detailed about this?". This goes along with a general attitude of conveying less curiosity and more certainty. Speaking for myself, on forums such as this, I'd rather learn about other's perspectives and reasoning rather than discount them.
With love, I'd like to gently ask: is that what you think you were doing when you discounted the researcher's perspective because they didn't define the word "doorway"?
In my experience, whether or not something is a slight has been irrelevant to whether it's true, so perceiving things as slights is counterproductive to maintaining an attitude of curiosity. Particularly, I'm curious about what I can do better.
It's worth noting that the reason I'm recognizing your behavior as pedantic here is that I have received the feedback that I'm prone to being pedantic, and as a result, I've worked very hard to recognize when I am being pedantic. I say this because I hope you'll recognize that I'm giving you feedback which I found helpful to myself and hope will help you, not because I think I'm better than you or I'm trying to hurt you.
I'd venture you may have received this feedback too, and received it as a slight or shutting down the conversation.
Indeed given some of the things you're referencing such as "perfect Bayesian agent", believing free will is an illusion, and Sam Harris, I strongly suspect we have very similar intellectual backgrounds.
> I don't like using "pedantic" when I want to encourage curious conversation. Speaking personally, when I hear it, it gives me the impression the other person is not demonstrating a mindset or vocabulary for the kind of communication that I find most valuable.
The person you are communicating also has a mindset and vocabulary for the kind of communication that they find most valuable. You don't get to force everyone into your communication preferences, and attempting to do so is a surefire way to prevent communication entirely. Even if your communication preferences are objectively better than theirs (which is a real possibility!), the content of the communication is likely much more valuable than the means of communication.
My experience is that the most valuable communication is a product of collaboration between both parties to build a common terminology. That collaboration can't happen if you insist on your own preferred forms of communication. Maybe if you could get the other person to use your form of communication it would be better, but you can't ever get anyone to communicate exactly how you want, so that's irrelevant. And notably, your preferred communication probably isn't perfect in every way.
> I simply want to add that I have a low-to-middling confidence in psychology based studies in general, at least out of the gate, until I dig into (or find someone else I trust who has) the study.
Same.
Part of my objection to insisting on a stricter definition of the word "doorway" is that it doesn't address any of the reasons my confidence is low. If I have 51% confidence in a study of doorways, it's not particularly interesting to me to improve that to 51% confidence in a doorways between wooden doorframes painted white that connect two rooms of equal size within a 20,000 square foot residential property that costs $70k in a top 10% school district. Specificity isn't adding anything pragmatic here because I still can't base most decisions on such low-confidence conclusions. If anything, the conclusion is less useful, because it only applies to such a narrow situation.
But, you asked about falsifiability--and I think that's a pretty different topic from confidence.
For myself and anyone (like you) who thinks about things more deeply, being called pedantic is unsatisfying. Why? Probably some combination of (a) it feels like a lack of engagement at the same level; (b) possibly a lack of intellectual capability and/or interest in the other party; (c) possibly indicative of a "rougher" personality -- could be merely a more direct style of conversation, but could also be indicative of a lack of awareness of social dynamics. For someone like me interested in vetting conversation partners, all of the former points are useful to gather signal. They are all tentative and subject to revision. But it is useful to recognize when someone else's criticism is likely being driven by aspects _other than_ the content.
I like how you introduced other related concepts; in particular you touched on the idea of being charitable. To try to expound a bit: if someone wants to say that I've _uncharitably_ characterized another position, I think that is worth saying -- doing so is a specific claim that I think works better to advance conversation.
> It's worth noting that the reason I'm recognizing your behavior as pedantic here is that I have received the feedback that I'm prone to being pedantic, and as a result, I've worked very hard to recognize when I am being pedantic. I say this because I hope you'll recognize that I'm giving you feedback which I found helpful to myself and hope will help you, not because I think I'm better than you or I'm trying to hurt you.
I appreciate your intention. First, may I ask what is your meaning of "being pedantic"? I have my own answer at the bottom of this book-sized message. Second, I have a concern that people who are being less thoughtful "brow-beat" those who are being more thoughtful by calling them "pedantic". I see some possibility that you've internalized this brow-beating and now are "passing it along" in the hopes of being helpful. It is helpful to think about, though what I do with it might not be what you expect. :)
I do think there are sensible definitions of "being pedantic", but I'm very reluctant to label someone else's comment as being such.
I think we'd agree: some people don't want to spend the effort in arguing against a comment -- that's fine. Even with your point about causation in mind, I don't see a need or benefit to label the post they disagree with as being _pedantic_. Calling someone's else comment _pedantic_ is rather easy, but offering constructive criticism requires more effort.
Just to explain my semantics, here is the root word of pedantic:
> pedant : a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning: the royal palace (some pedants would say the ex-royal palace).
Keeping this in mind, thinking about your causation point... I think the underlying basis relies on a deeper question; namely, "What level of detail are we trying to explain here?" If one part is only interested in a relatively granular model, they might accuse someone else of being pedantic. But that other person may be seeking a more granular model. My point: rather than calling "pedantic" I think using terminology around "what are we trying to explain?" advances the conversation with minimal risk of slighting the other person.
Lastly, yes, I'm a critical reader of Harris and his guests. I get the impression he puts in a good faith effort to get at deeper truths, though I disagree with some particulars, as informed and reasonable people probably should. Again, I appreciate your comment, thanks!
Another form of pedantry is when people insist on a specific definition of the word, when it might be possible to intuit that the other person means something else, even if they aren't using a more common definition of the words. Again, it's requiring a lot of effort from the other person so that you don't have to put in the effort to figure out what they might have meant.
The point is, it's exhausting to talk to someone who is being pedantic, because you have to put in all the effort to be understood while they put in very little effort to understand. That's of course not their intent in most cases--when I relapse into pedantry it's often because I want to be sure I understand the person, not because I want to maliciously exhaust them. But the best intentions don't fix the problem that it makes me hard to talk to.
Of course, the alternative to "being pedantic" is that you're going to intuit some details, and sometimes you'll get them wrong. But that's just a risk of communication: it's impossible to communicate with 100% accuracy.
Trying to communicate with extreme accurately has a lot of cost: it takes a lot of effort. It's not necessary reasonable to expect that effort of the people you want to communicate with. Case in point: I simply don't have time to continue this conversation much farther if I'm going to be expected to write out posts of this length each time to define every little detail of how I'm defining each word I use. That's not a decision I'm making because of any sort of animosity, it's a fact of my current workload.
It goes both ways: there are parts of your post I can't engage with because again, I don't have the time.
And, defining every little detail of everything hits a maximum eventually. You can write in immense detail, but eventually you'll hit the maximum ability of your audience to take it in. There are almost certainly aspects of this post which you are going to miss, simply because I wrote a lot. It's often the case that pedantry is just asking for more clarification than the pedant can actually absorb.
Additionally, there are other solutions to miscommunication than throwing a bunch of up-front effort at communicating. Often when a miscommunication happens because the other person intuited something incorrectly, they'll say something that gives you a chance to correct the miscommunication.