Poll: Correcting People

[Veylon]

I do tend to correct people. I try to limit it to things that are grossly wrong, though my inclination is to explain everything to the minutest detail regardless of whether such depth has any validity in the current context. I also have a tendency to not give "straight" answers because I feel they don't fully convey the true state of affairs.

 

[ALuckyChance]

If the person that needs to be corrected said something so mindbogglingly stupid, then yes. Since I'm thirteen and live in Texas, I get that a lot in my middle school.

 

[camazotz]

Wait.....on the first example, it would probably help if you asked the person more info about their car, first; it comes off as arrogant because you are assuming they don't know what you're about to impart on certain assumptions (such as a new car) that may be false. I, for example, have two seventeen year old trucks that exactly benefits from a good occasional coast.

In fact...the other problem of the first statement is that it's a sort of "Let me tell you" without engaging the poor person with a tactic that doesn't sound preachy. If you said, "Hey, I read that new vehicles with X engine no longer gain a performance benefit out of Y action, boy that sucks, eh?" it would be friendlier without being too snotty.

To be honest, I might have fought you with that info....or questioned it, anyway, since that's news to me!!! (But hey, I drive two 17 year old trucks, so whadda I know). In fact, I've never heard of any state that has laws against it, either (in the US anyway). I'd be torn between wanting to ask for more details, and removing myself from the conversation to look up these facts later, because I wouldn't want to reward the arrogant soul who just decided to "elucidate the poor misguided fool." Sigh....egos....tough things to deal with on all sides.....

EDIT: Ah, forgot to mention! I'll correct people on details I consider myself a reasonable authority about (say, archaeology or accounting, two subjects near and dear, or just near and near to my heart), but like I said, I prefer not to do it in a manner that implies anything about the "corectee" in the manner. I know I hate that when people do it to me...and the only ones I meet who engage in such behavior almost inevitably come off as pompous or arrogant.

 

[Hashime]

So what are everyone's thoughts on correcting people during conversation? (face to face) Rude? Helpful? Arrogant? What say you?

I'm not talking about being a general jerk about it, but about pointing out a bit of false information with good intention.
Example conversation:

person A: Yeah I always put my car in neutral when I'm going downhill or coasting so I save gas.

person B: Actually, with modern engine design, you don't save any gas that way. Even if it did though, it's actually illegal in some states to do that, and you're putting extra wear on the transmission.

example of what I *don't* mean: (paraphrased from High Fidelity)

person A: I love the record "#4 With a Smile"
person B: Actaully, it's "The #4 With a Smile"

OR

person A: The state fair this year is much funner than last year.
person B: Don't you mean more fun?

In the first example I think that the person is better off knowing how the engine is actually working, and why they shouldn't do that. Generally I'd say that if it is something that "everyone knows" that turns out is false, and makes a difference, I'd rather have someone correct me, so I often do the same.

Accept if you are driving a standard, then it does save gas, not much tough. People still do drive stick.

Except... that if you have a fuel injection engine, the wheels spinning keep the engine running. If you shift into neutral, either in an automatic or standard, the engine injects just enough fuel to keep the engine running. If you keep it in gear and have zero input on the throttle, then zero gas is being sent the engine, this would be why a standard stalls is it not?

Either way it's more dangerous, sometimes illegal, and more wear on your transmission, and in the case of hills, more wear on your brake pads.

No, the engine will idle when not engaged yes, using less gas, but since the clutch will be disengaged or in other words the engine will not be connected to the transmission, This means speed can be produced by gravity. As for the more brake wear comment, in a standard the engine can be used to slow down, so brakes need not be used.
A standard stalls when the RPM of the engine drops below a certain range, on my car it is about 1250 rpm. It is also not more dangerous, or illegal. "Putting the clutch in" is necessary to be able to drive a standard.

 

[freedomweasel]

So what are everyone's thoughts on correcting people during conversation? (face to face) Rude? Helpful? Arrogant? What say you?

I'm not talking about being a general jerk about it, but about pointing out a bit of false information with good intention.
Example conversation:

person A: Yeah I always put my car in neutral when I'm going downhill or coasting so I save gas.

person B: Actually, with modern engine design, you don't save any gas that way. Even if it did though, it's actually illegal in some states to do that, and you're putting extra wear on the transmission.

example of what I *don't* mean: (paraphrased from High Fidelity)

person A: I love the record "#4 With a Smile"
person B: Actaully, it's "The #4 With a Smile"

OR

person A: The state fair this year is much funner than last year.
person B: Don't you mean more fun?

In the first example I think that the person is better off knowing how the engine is actually working, and why they shouldn't do that. Generally I'd say that if it is something that "everyone knows" that turns out is false, and makes a difference, I'd rather have someone correct me, so I often do the same.

Accept if you are driving a standard, then it does save gas, not much tough. People still do drive stick.

Except... that if you have a fuel injection engine, the wheels spinning keep the engine running. If you shift into neutral, either in an automatic or standard, the engine injects just enough fuel to keep the engine running. If you keep it in gear and have zero input on the throttle, then zero gas is being sent the engine, this would be why a standard stalls is it not?

Either way it's more dangerous, sometimes illegal, and more wear on your transmission, and in the case of hills, more wear on your brake pads.

No, the engine will idle when not engaged yes, using less gas, but since the clutch will be disengaged or in other words the engine will not be connected to the transmission, This means speed can be produced by gravity. As for the more brake wear comment, in a standard the engine can be used to slow down, so brakes need not be used.
A standard stalls when the RPM of the engine drops below a certain range, on my car it is about 1250 rpm. It is also not more dangerous, or illegal. "Putting the clutch in" is necessary to be able to drive a standard.

Thats what I'm saying, the engine will idle when the clutch is not engaged, or the car is in neutral. This uses more gas as the injectors have to put fuel into the engine to burn. If the the clutch is engaged, then the wheels (via gravity moving the car downhill) drive the engine, and *no* gas is used.
My brake comment meant that yes, the engine is used to slow down the car, which is why you would want to have the clutch engaged. This, is why it is illegal in some states, and arguably more dangerous. You can quickly gain too much speed, panic and lose control. Also, in the event you need to quickly gain speed, you are in neutral and are unable to do so. If you simply keep the clutch pedal depressed, you're putting unneeded wear on the assembly.