Align and move the "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]" example

[dbooth-boston]

Section of 3.2 on patronizing behavior says:

Intentionally or unintentionally making assumptions about the skills or knowledge of others, such as using language that implies the audience is uninformed on a topic (e.g., interjections like "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]").

But the example in the bullet, though rude, is not an example of patronizing behavior. Patronizing behavior would involve the speaker assuming that the audience is UNinformed. But in the example given, the speaker made the opposite assumption. The speaker assumed that the audience was informed about [topic], and indicated (or feigned) surprise that the audience was actually UNinformed.

I suggest changing the example in this bullet to align with the intent of the section. Two possibilities might be:

• "You probably don't know about [topic]"; or
• "I'm surprised you know about [topic]".

Incidentally, I think "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]" is a good example of demeaning behavior. A perfect place for it would be to append it to this bullet:

Feigning surprise at someone’s lack of knowledge or awareness about a topic.

I suggest we move it there.

[wareid]

Patronizing behaviour = demeaning behaviour, there is no difference.

I appreciate the desire for precision here, but I think this is getting into editorial hair-splitting territory. We've already gone back and forth on whether or not examples are helpful or harmful in this section and I think this gets back into this territory. There is not going to be a wording that perfectly captures patronizing behaviour, as it's rarely about the words used.

[dbooth-boston]

Patronizing behaviour = demeaning behaviour, there is no difference.

I think one can be demeaning without being patronizing. But that isn't the point. The point is that the example is supposed to be about the speaker assuming that the audience is UNinformed, but the example illustrates the opposite. And there's another place in the document where the example would be perfect.

Some may view this as hair-splitting, but I view it as improving the document, just as spelling corrections, grammar corrections and logical consistency corrections all improve the document. Logical inconsistencies make a document harder to read -- perhaps not for every reader, but certainly for some. And the more flaws a document has, the more readers are likely to judge it by its flaws instead of its message.

[Usermsn]

User.com
BCG.
BBC
icloud.com