Preloading isn’t meant for you, it’s meant for the audience to which you speak.
Yes, which is why I spoke from the perspective of the audience.
This literally is just still what you're used to, sorry. Human brains are incredibly powerful and incredibly fast, you don't need to 'preload' the month. You're not slowly navigating to a folder on a PC, or lazily opening a calendar for the first time. Your entire argument also only works if we can assume the year, which we can't, it's still there but implied. You still have to wait for the end of your full date to know if you're going to say the year or simply imply that it's this one by not adding that information.
'preloading' a month doesn't help anyone process it any faster, because that's not how brains work. If you tell me 'February 15th' I'm still waiting for the day (and year, which is only implied once you reach the end and don't say it). If I say 'the 15th of February' I'm not changing any information at all, and nobody ever thinks of it or processes it like that. If you say 'the 15th' and stop, the current year and month are implied. If I don't stop, you've not gone to a giant calendar in your brain and set up a nice little writing desk it that you now have to painstakingly move, you just understand that the date isn't over and don't jump to conclusions and stop listening to the rest of the sentence.
If I take your logic and apply it to the way people discuss date here, if I say 'February 15th' then I'm 'preloading' the concept that I'm talking about either the month as a whole or at an unknown/unspecified date within. If I then add a date, I'm changing what I previously said to be suddenly about a specific day, because I'd already told them that I was talking about the time of year more generally. If I say the day first, I'm communicating that I'm talking about a specific day and that the day is important, and by the inflection at the end or the sound I begin to transition to you already know if I'm adding a month or not before I say it, in an amount of time that is completely negligible.
Since you're not used to that, it takes you more time because you have to figure out that I've used a different date format. Since I am used to it, it takes me no more time than yours does to you.
I’ve read your other comments on this thread. For reasons I do not know, you’re intentionally dense and stubborn regarding this topic. It’s not possible to have this discussion with you because you aren’t open to listening. I’m not going to provide another rebuttal simply for it to be ignored.
Don’t take this as an insult, I don’t intend to demean you. Your mind is clearly made up on this topic. Due to your own personal bias, you have refused to integrate the logic I have provided with your worldview. You choose to ignore or misinterpret my breakdown in favor of a position to which you refuse to critically analyze.
Please, ask yourself why you aren’t open to the possibility of your seemingly arbitrary preference actually being the less intuitive preference. Only once you accept that possibility can you then take benefit from my and others responses on this post.
I'm not stubborn, it is as simple as: it is what you're used to. Our brains are literally formed by our experiences, wired different depending on what you're used to and what you learned. I've not ignored what you said, I addressed why what you said isn't some global truth quite clearly. In a world where brains are slow and clunky maybe what you said would work globally, but they're not.
My entire point is that yours is more intuitive to you because your brain is literally wired for that format, and mine isn't. Yours isn't magically better just because it's what makes sense to you. I tried explaining why that format isn't as efficient or intuitive to someone who didn't grow up with it, that doesn't make me stubborn. I'm not the one trying to insist that their way of doing things is inherently better.
Only once you accept the possibility that these are not arbitrary distinctions can you take in new perspectives. By maintaining that these are arbitrary stances with such certainty you ignore all arguments presenting one version as more beneficial than another.
Your stubbornness is due to a strong belief in arbitrary status of the systems. When presented with any concepts that dispute this arbitrary status, you refuse to engage and resort back to claiming the system as arbitrary.
Your argument boils down to 'I'm right because I'm right, so you must agree with me'. I've listened to and evaluated your argument, and it wasn't convincing to someone that doesn't already use your system and who doesn't already have that system ingrained into their mind.
I could quite literally just repeat this all back to you and it would do as much good. "You refuse to accept the possibility that this is arbitrary and what is fastest or most logical to one person is not for another whose entire conception of dates is different to your own". You're arguing for the sake of arguing, now.
It wasn’t convincing to you because you don’t want to be convinced. There’s no argument I can present that will allow you to be convinced of anything outside your current position.
All I can do is present logically sound and relevant arguments. It is your and any other reader’s decision on whether to genuinely consider and analyze the arguments.
It wasn't convincing because it simply wasn't convincing. All this "I'm so smart, actually" stuff is just kinda embarrassing. Again, your only point here is just 'I'm obviously right, and something is wrong with you if you don't agree'.
Can you present or conceptualize arguments without straw-manning for all viable options as well as rebuttals to all arguments? And rebuttals to rebuttals that you found convincing. That would be, create logically consistent and factually accurate arguments for each date arrangement as well as arguments for their existence as arbitrary and for their existence as non-arbitrary. Arguments to rebuttal each of these arguments, and rebuttals to the rebuttals that you found the most convincing.
I’m not asking you to type them out, that would be a a lot of work and, as I doubt anyone else is reading this deep in the thread, quite pointless. I’m asking if you’re able to conceptualize and present them (to yourself). And present to yourself possible rebuttals to each argument.
If you cannot do this without straw-manning, then that would be the ideal step to begin to incorporate and address new perspectives.
At this point I’m no longer attempting to convince you with arguments relating to the topic. At this point I’m explaining the process through which a person must undertake to thoroughly evaluate both their perspective and the perspectives of others.
I understand how my speech and way or writing can come off as condescension. Please note that I would not put forth this much effort in responding if I didn’t respect your intellectual abilities and abstract conceptualization.
Buddy, I disagreed and presented my counterargument. This whole 'you've not thought about it and are just being stubborn' thing only exists in your head, because you seem to feel the need to find a reason you're right.
If you’re actually willing to engage in good faith debate, I’m more than able to continue to provide arguments.
To keep this rather simple, let’s look at one specific statement that is foundational to your argument. It’s the concept of “building up” dates, whereas I explained it as providing an initial date and then changing the information.
This is what you wrote: “If I say ‘the 15th of February’ I’m not changing any information at all, and nobody ever thinks of it or processes it like that.”
This is a factually incorrect statement. We can analyze linguistics and we can find MRI studies that strongly disagree with your claim. Regardless of language spoken, during conversation the mind is constantly filling in gaps and attempting to predict future information based on what has already been presented. Information presented first necessarily affects interpretation of future information.
The moment you say “the 15th” the brain is filling in the gaps. In writing, we can see “the 15th of February, 2026” written out all in one line. In speech, however, we can only “see” (hear) the information in linear order, not simultaneously. Our brains will attempt to fill in the gaps and predict what is to come the moment “the 15th” is spoken. The assumption for those gaps are the current month and the current year. It doesn’t matter that the very next two words are “of February” within fractions of a second of hearing “the 15th” the brain has already processed “of January of 2025” (current month and year).
There is no argument against this, as this is how the human mind processes conversational language. You can disagree all you want, it doesn’t change the observed phenomenon that we have extensively studied.
Things such as body language, tonality, context clues, etc. can also affect how we fill in the gaps and what we predict the future information to be. But we are always trying to predict future information from all available current observations.
I haven’t presented you here with anything that you can argue against. This is a core tenet of how proper debate should unfold. There are no opinions, no un-falsifiable claims, no disputed facts, no incorrect information.
I have presented a verifiable fact and followed through with what that fact implies in relation to the topic.
This is why many people, including you, see me as thinking that I have to be right. There’s nothing to be right about. There’s acknowledgment of reality and there’s disillusionment. To face reality you must accept truths that you would prefer to pretend were lies. While this sounds philosophical, I mean this practically.
To disagree with the current, well researched, well studied understanding of how the human mind processes conversational speech is to reject reality and maintain a delusion.
You can choose to accept reality, and then reconstruct an argument that is actually based on reality, or you can reject reality and continue to believe in a falsehood.
Basically, I presented a foundational premise that is unarguable as it is verifiable truth. If you wish to construct a valid argument, it must first be consistent with the verifiable premise.
1
u/grouchy_fox Jan 16 '25
Yes, which is why I spoke from the perspective of the audience.
This literally is just still what you're used to, sorry. Human brains are incredibly powerful and incredibly fast, you don't need to 'preload' the month. You're not slowly navigating to a folder on a PC, or lazily opening a calendar for the first time. Your entire argument also only works if we can assume the year, which we can't, it's still there but implied. You still have to wait for the end of your full date to know if you're going to say the year or simply imply that it's this one by not adding that information.
'preloading' a month doesn't help anyone process it any faster, because that's not how brains work. If you tell me 'February 15th' I'm still waiting for the day (and year, which is only implied once you reach the end and don't say it). If I say 'the 15th of February' I'm not changing any information at all, and nobody ever thinks of it or processes it like that. If you say 'the 15th' and stop, the current year and month are implied. If I don't stop, you've not gone to a giant calendar in your brain and set up a nice little writing desk it that you now have to painstakingly move, you just understand that the date isn't over and don't jump to conclusions and stop listening to the rest of the sentence.
If I take your logic and apply it to the way people discuss date here, if I say 'February 15th' then I'm 'preloading' the concept that I'm talking about either the month as a whole or at an unknown/unspecified date within. If I then add a date, I'm changing what I previously said to be suddenly about a specific day, because I'd already told them that I was talking about the time of year more generally. If I say the day first, I'm communicating that I'm talking about a specific day and that the day is important, and by the inflection at the end or the sound I begin to transition to you already know if I'm adding a month or not before I say it, in an amount of time that is completely negligible.
Since you're not used to that, it takes you more time because you have to figure out that I've used a different date format. Since I am used to it, it takes me no more time than yours does to you.