You Just Dont Get It

TheExecutionOfFederalLaw?

A phrase made popular during the dot-com bubble, but sometimes seen in HolyWars. It is sometimes perceived as a way to insult somebody's intellectual ability, accuse them of Luddite-like behavior, and/or a way to avoid having to justify something with specific and objective metrics.

It's an example of the fallacy of ArgumentFromIntimidation.

The people who don't "get it" often seem to be uninterested in "getting it". The problem isn't that they don't understand, or that they couldn't understand even if they tried. I think it's more that they don't want to understand. IgnoranceIsCool? these days, whether of the workings of a car engine, the innards of /etc/fstab or the reasons for not buying cheap inkjet refills from spammers.

When this is the case, it may be true that "YouJustDontGetIt" could be an insult to somebody's intellectual ability, but it is probably a fair one.

But let us AssumeMiscommunicationNotMalice for a moment. How should the IncompetentCommunicator explain to somebody who doesn't "get it"? Screenshots and a powerpoint presentation? A worked example or comparison? Stand over the person while he reads the web page on which you found a particularly lucid explanation, and then interrogate him until you know whether he understood?

In all cases there will come a point that the nongettee either sees the light or gives up trying to understand what you are trying to explain. People are busy, and nobody can understand everything.

Where can you go from there? Do they ReallyUnderstand?? How many times did you have to read the GnuGeneralPublicLicense before you understood it completely? (Are you sure about that?) -- MatthewAstley

Re: The people who don't "get it" often seem to be uninterested in "getting it".

Well it is not that simple. OO fans say I "don't get OO", but I think they don't "get relational". Frankly, I think OO fans are ignorant and suckered in by the clever OO cliches, but I am willing to consider that it is a subjective preference. How do you distinguish universal external superiority and subjective preferences? -- A RelationalWeenie

May I paraphrase? FTR my position on OO vs. Relation would probably be "fell into OO by default because it's the current favourite, aware that the OO bandwagon has large companies behind and pushing hard; curious about relational". I would like to separate that whole thread from "YouJustDontGetIt", if I can.

Foo fans say I "don't get Foo", but I think they "don't get Spong". Frankly, I think Foo fans are ignorant and suckered in by the clever Foo cliches, but I am willing to consider that it is a subjective preference. How do you distinguish universal external superiority and subjective preferences? -- a Spong weenie.

Foo fans say I "don't get Foo". They also say other stuff, but of course you can't list it here (there's too much of it) and they disagree about which other things are important.
A Spong fan says they "don't get Spong", and that Foo fans are ignorant [of Spong? or generally?] and suckered in by the clever Foo cliches [supplied by whom?]. Spong fan also admits the preference could be subjective [because?] it is hard to say what is objectively true. Spong fan comes over as having considered the options, but we haven't actually heard from the Foo fans yet.

How is it that the Fooers and Spongers can't make more objective comparisons? Perhaps the careful experiments would take too long, or have too many other variables which cannot be controlled. What other options are there for helping someone "get it"? That part of the [OO/relational] discussion I've read seems to be chaotic and anarchic. -- MatthewAstley

[also] Are you also saying that the dot-com pushers are right who said those who did not sacrifice profits to get market share? (Did I say that right?)

I didn't follow that. I think there's a (grammatical) clause missing?

I believe he meant: "The dot-com pushers said that those who did not sacrifice profits to gain market share 'didn't get it'. Are you also saying that they were correct?

HowToSellGoldenHammers offers some benefit communications tips.

Objective comparison requires metrics agreed between parties; all measurement is subjective - but subjective measurement of agreed nature approximates objectivity (or at least gives a frame of reference for datum gathered); YouJustDontGetIt is more about wooly metrics and vaguer derivative assessments of same than it is about innate superiority

Re: "all measurement is subjective - but subjective measurement of agreed nature approximates objectivity"

Are you suggesting that ArgumentByMajority? is sufficient? Or, simply don't argue over things that we agree on?

I think it is suggesting that one try to work with and build upon what is agree on, regardless of whether it is truely objective. It is like agreeing on the base givens/axioms and then working up from there. In other words, find common ground and work with that common ground.

Well, it could mean "Hey. Don't think you understand this! You don't! Keep thinking!"

But recent history has shown that YouJustDontGetIt more often means "Hey. I believe this! But I don't understand it! And I don't realise that! I'm just going to assume that it's you that has the problem!". In fact, it is something of an AlarmBellPhrase, at least as used to as it was during the lead up to the DotComBust, where it was so often used by the management of hopeless companies to disarm their critics.

I generally feel that it is PersonalChoiceElevatedToMoralImperative. The user of the phrase cannot turn their preference into objective external evidence and practical examples, and out of frustration resort to attacking the intellectual ability or general skill of their proponent.

Also often used when people are arguing about the same thing, but can only see their own aspects of it. For example, a socially-minded person arguing with a technological person about a problem. One just doesn't get the technical details or the importance of working out a solution while the other just doesn't get the importance of placing blame and making emotional outbursts (or rather, from the socially-minded person's point of view, the tech just doesn't seem to get the seriousness of the situation, since the tech isn't getting emotional and arguing about blame).