A hostile student is harsher than a Stubborn''''''Student (someone who stubbornly resists understanding your point even after both extensive explanation and extensive answering of questions; or they may have a hidden agenda that they are not discussing, such as not wanting to grant a point, because it would create a tactically weak position on a different topic); consider the latter possibility.

A hostile student is someone who acts as if they think you're their teacher without making a good faith effort to follow your explanations or accept known facts. For instance, asking for unreasonably complicated, time-consuming or exhaustive explanations. As a concrete example, someone who refuses to admit the sky is blue until you explain '''why''' it is blue.

''I am uncomfortable with the above example. Many times, I feel it is appropriate to 'refuse to admit [a fact]... until you explain why.' The reasoning behind that explanation often helps to refine the student's mental model.''

''As a concrete example, I am taking an advanced physics course, and it is often hard to implicitly integrate many functions. I usually use Mathematica to tell me the solution; however, I don't accept the formula until I understand how it was derived. The process of deriving these formulas helps me practice trigonometry and calculus concepts that were not emphasized during the original courses. As a result, future problems are easier to solve and new concepts are easier to understand. Am I a HostileStudent (even considering that the teacher is a computer program)?''

* A hostile student wouldn't accept the answer at all until the formula given by Mathematica had been explicitly derived. You're not ''hostile'' to the idea that the formula given by Mathematica is true. Additionally, you have a very well-defined threshold of proof which you apply uniformly to see whether a derivation is acceptable, and this threshold is widely agreed to be reasonable (for a physics student) and is ''proved'' to be reasonable by the fact that it is routinely met (you routinely find derivations for the formulas given by Mathematica). And finally, you yourself expend your own time and effort to produce the proofs that you demand; you acknowledge that it is unreasonable to ask them of Mathematica so you do the work yourself.

* A hostile student rarely has such a well-defined threshold or they make sure not to advertise it because it is ridiculously unreasonable. For example, demanding proof at the level of a doctoral thesis on wiki. In extreme cases, the excessive threshold of proof is specifically engineered to make it reasonable for the hostile student to not accept your proof even if it could be produced. If they require as little as a single dense book full of citations, they will proceed to complain that the book is too long and they don't have time to read it. More often, they'll require the equivalent of dozens of books. The idea there is to make the argument so complex that nobody could keep track of it so it will seem entirely reasonable for them to not understand or accept it. In no case does the hostile student acknowledge that their requirements are unreasonable and agree to help you meet them.

** I've been accused of "demanding proof at the level of a doctoral thesis" which is NOT true. I only request clear demonstrations and clear reasoning. So far, nothing's come even close so as to dispute the presentation technique. I believe people to be using the "doctorate" accusation as an excuse to '''present nothing'''. --top

** ''By my observations, you seem unwilling to understand "clear demonstrations" and "clear reasoning" when they're offered.  When other people take ''effort'' to answer ''your'' requests, I firmly believe you possess a ''moral responsibility'' to make an ''equal or greater effort'' to comprehend them.  You are unwilling to put forth this effort, and you regularly blame the other person when you prove to lack either the good faith or intelligence to keep up.  Further, you often counter-present your own ideas in manners that are far more fallacious and at a lever FAR below the level you're requesting of everyone else.  It is easy to see why so many people dislike you and think you a hypocrite and troll.''

** If I am doing such, I am not aware of it. I am rarely intentionally evil. You'd have to point out specific instances when and where I do such bad things for me to see it's actually happening. I will correct clear objective flaws in my writing style (although will occasionally "vent"). What I actually often see, though, is ArgumentFromAuthority passed off as "objective" or "obviously true" rather than direct and objective statements. You guys often mistake your sacred notions for external truth. And I believe the hostility toward me is due to my propensity to question sacred cows, not mostly because of my writing style. I've asked for allegedly "clear logic" to be broken into '''numbered semi-formal short statements of logic''' (ItemizedClearLogic), but the other party refuses for reasons that completely escape me. If it's truly objective logic, it should be able to broken down in such a way. -t

** ''You wrote, "I am rarely intentionally evil."  Do you mean you are sometimes intentionally evil?  That's almost... Frightening.  It's definitely a worry.''

** Small evils, like cussing. Okay, I confess I once reversed some BrainFsck code to see if anybody would notice. Nobody did, and I put it back.

A hostile student is someone who will say PleaseDoMyHomeworkForMe ... OR ELSE!! ''

A hostile student not only disbelieves what you're teaching them, they are extremely hostile to it (possibly even hostile towards you), and are not willing to extend you the least benefit of the doubt.

Since you are supposed to be their teacher, they see it as your moral duty to convince them of the absolute truth of your beliefs, using formal logic, and going all the way down to fundamental metaphysical axioms. Further, you must convince them ''right here and now'', even when references on the subject are widely available on google or at a public library. For example, there was a HostileStudent on one of the pages discussing civilization and consciousness who essentially wanted the entire contents of OriginOfConsciousness transcribed and defended for his edification.

Hostile students occasion responses of Read The Fucking Manifesto!

An extreme form of the HostileStudent, verging on the BlatantIdiot, is someone who insults you at the beginning of a page for holding an opinion which you had already disproved later on in the ''same page''. This happened on DefinitionOfLife by some AnonymousCoward.

People can be HostileStudent''''''s semi-accidentally, not noticing that that is what they are doing, but in general it should be a fairly objective rather than subjective issue. If it gets into shades of grey where it is a subjective judgement call, then the label doesn't apply. (But note that a true HostileStudent will always deny that they are one, since they're already denying pretty much everything you say.)

''Best way to deal with a HostileStudent is to provide them references (specific enough to be useful) to the relevant literature. (Simply saying ItsInTheLiterature isn't enough - though it isn't always necessary to give title, chapter, and verse).''

----

Sometimes this isn't a hostile student, but a rationalist. These people have an inability to empathize; for instance, they might not realize that you do not care or that you are comfortable with a partial understanding of an idea because it's just an interesting or fun idea. Instead, they will legalistically hold you to anything you say because they see every word as being a pronouncement of Truth, even if you were hungover and your girlfriend just dumped you and you weren't thinking too clearly. This is because they see everything they write as a pronouncement of Truth, since Truth is the only thing worth living for in their view. Computer science is rife with these types as computers are the perfect realization of this perspective. Philosophy also has a lot of these types, and so you will often get into stupid discussions over the DefinitionOfLife which seem so incredibly important to them (as such a definition is a foundation of their world view) but are completely irrelevant to the rest of us who just think it's a neat idea to kick around. 

You have no hope of convincing them of your feelings on the subject, and getting angry to them is only "proof" of your irrationality and thus a pronouncement of their superior logic. A foolproof way to test this is to ask them to describe love. If you get an overly scientific or philosophical treatment, you're screwed. You're even more screwed if they quote AynRand on the subject of love. However, don't actually ask them to do this because it will just get you into a flame war.

I've wondered if it is possible to get them to add to their axiom set the premises, "I do not empathize with other human beings," and "Emotions are more important to most people than logic," which seem rather "objective" and honest statements, but since their self-esteem often rides on the superiority of their arguments, these premises would basically mean they would have to admit they are always wrong. It's perhaps easier to admit that I am always wrong and that they have no hope in hell of getting the kind of intellectual stimulation they are looking for from me as I just am not smart enough. -- SunirShah

Well, Sunir, if you're not smart enough, then I am certainly not, and surely don't have a prayer.

What's worse, I still think such discussions are worth the engagement, but I hate the bruising and contusions that inevitably proceed. I find myself tempering what I say with phrases designed to deflect hostility, even though what I mean is quite simply "this is true, and I know it to be true, since I have lived it." The fact that I have been witness to some phenomenon clearly disqualifies me from meaningful opinion, since my observations a) are not quoted from some scholarly work, b) don't confirm some scholarly work, and c) often contradict some scholarly work, and therefore d) I must be brainwashed or hallucinating. I keep hoping to get through, even though common sense would tell me the effort is doomed. Sometimes it sucks to be an optimist. -- GarryHamilton

anecdotal evidence

----
'''Premature Presumption of Roles?'''

''[I am not your student. I am not hostile. If you don't want to discuss this, just be honest and say so.]''

Agreed. If you elect yourself teacher and start acting that way without permission, you are inviting conflict. If you feel the other party is not familiar enough with a topic and you don't wish to take the time to present what you see as lessons, then politely say so and move on. '''Don't insist on a teacher-pupil relationship''' unless there is a mutual agreement. Otherwise, you've become a HostileTeacher. 

''Unfortunately, it is not that simple.  If you ask a question for purpose of seeking to understand the answer, you ARE a student.  It's right there in the definition of student: someone who studies, a person engaged in learning.  (You just aren't a pupil.)  If you present yourself this way, by asking a question as though you're genuinely interested in the answer, but you aren't actually willing to hear the answer, then you're '''already''' a HostileStudent (even before anyone answers).  This is true even if someone says: "You're an idiot!" and you ask: "Why?".  '''Don't ask questions if you don't want the answers''', unless there already exists some sort of mutual understanding on what constitutes a 'rhetorical' question.  Otherwise, you've become a HostileStudent.''

If somebody asks for more evidence of a claim, that ''alone'' does ''not'' turn them into a "student". Whether they don't "hear" the answer depends on the definition of "hear" being used. It's possible your presentation is lacking. Hopefully the other side is clear about where the gaps are.

----

(The middle of a heated discussion moved from MemeticsGenetics. It is unfair of me to yank this out of context. Sorry. The original authors are really quite reasonable most of the time.)

* [I am not your student. I am not hostile. If you don't want to discuss this, just be honest and say so.]

* ''Can one get much worse than a HostileStudent hostile to the notion they're a hostile student? Eric, you act as if the other posters have an obligation to explain what is patently obvious to them. IOW, you act like a student. And you certainly are hostile.''

* [The other posters asked me to explain what was patently obvious to me. I did so. There's nothing hostile about that, nor was there anything hostile about asking them to explain what is patently obvious to them. I ask because I think their reasoning is flawed, not because I am their student. I also ask because what seems "patently obvious" is often an incorrect assumption. I haven't called any contributions "crap" or any of the proponents "blatant idiots". I think I've been the least hostile participant in this discussion, but that's entirely subjective. -- EricHodges]

** Not to take sides on whether you are or are not, but just as a matter of definition, if you look more carefully at HostileStudent, you'll see that it is about a certain attitude perceived by others, not about whether you are a student of those others. If I say "prove to me I exist (but I won't agree to any axioms at all)", I am being a hostile student because of the insistence that others teach/prove something. Even if I only demand such implicitly.

** [So why am I more of a HostileStudent than the other contributors? Because my opinion is less common? Have I asked others to explain themselves more than they have asked me?]

** I '''said''' I'm not taking sides on that. I am responding purely to you saying that you aren't their student; I'm explaining that that is beside the point of the issue on the topic of HostileStudent. Clarification, that's all.

** [The HostileStudent page says "[a] hostile student is someone who thinks you are their teacher." I don't think anyone here is my teacher. That isn't why I asked them to explain their positions.]
** I understand what you're saying. I'm trying to say that that initial sentence of the HostileStudent page very badly explains the subject, so I was here attempting to explain better than that initial sentence does. That initial sentence is phrased badly enough to almost be outright wrong.
** [I thought the initial sentence of HostileStudent was written by the originator of the concept. I've never heard the phrase outside of wiki (and a quick google shows no other uses of that particular concept). I assumed it was a phrase RK invented to insult people he disagrees with. Is this in common usage someplace else?]
** I grok the page and the concept in its entirety, so I am not reliant on the original author to interpret the subject. :-| It's a matter of self-consistency of the concept; from the first time I read that page, it was clear that the first sentence was poorly phrased; it never meshed well with the rest of the page. (I just fixed it somewhat.)
** [I dislike the concept because it seems to defend axioms and assumptions. Galileo could have been written off as a HostileStudent, if I understand the page correctly. Anyway, does anyone feel like talking about memetics again?]

* ''You've acted in a consistently passive-aggressive manner. This is rarely perceived of as hostile by the perpetrator but it is.''

* ''For instance, your repeated demands that others explain the patently obvious. It doesn't matter whether or not YOU think it is obvious, the fact of the matter is that it is obvious to a large segment of the population. And further that what is obvious is frequently what is most difficult to prove. You cannot reasonably expect more than a good faith effort to explain the obvious. Such a good faith effort relies on YOUR willingness to grasp the concepts and distinctions involved. You simply cannot expect a "proof", as you have been, without being hostile. -- RK''

* [I repeated the request (never a demand) because no one would explain their claims. It doesn't matter how large a segment of the population shares a view. Large segments of the population once believed that meteors were impossible. I haven't seen a good faith effort to explain the obvious. My questions remain unanswered. I expect rational discourse without hostility.]

(Removed unnecessary insult)

----

A HostileStudent is NOT somebody who asks for basic science on large claims.

Good science does NOT include:

* "I already explained that before. Go back and read it."
* "I don't need to write no stinking documentation."
* "Why can't you just trust me."
* "Emerse yourself in it for 5 years, then you will realize you don't need science."

No, but a HostileStudent ''is'' someone who:

* Gives no indication whatsoever as to whether he has or has not read explanations already given - all while demanding more explanation.
** Perhaps you need to reword the original statement. Don't always blame the reader first. For example, try breaking it into pieces and get confirmation of the first step before moving to the second step rather than squash it all into one monster paragraph. The Greeks invented this incremental confirmation style, didn't they? It's still good.
* Questions the veracity of what's been offered without doing an iota of research into it himself, and without explaining why he thinks it to be untrue. (If he simply assumes that the teacher is a lying bastard, why continue conversing?)
* Complains about five years' worth of work when asked to invest five hours in understanding a topic.
* Disputes the quality or importance of references provided (often based on some underlying philosophical objection), ''often without reading it(them).''. Many debates between scientists and non-scientists over matters that are considered (by the scientist, at least) to be within the domain of science fall in this category - i.e. creationism. (Of course, often times the non-scientist considers the question to be ''outside'' the realm of science. For example, a creationist will often believe that "scriptural evidence" - statements or claims found in the Bible - trumps any and all scientific investigation, and that science is only valid when concerning matters which are not contradicted or constrained by religious doctrine).
** ''I for one think most evolutionist proponents do a crappy job of justifying evolution (and I agree with evolution). The ego of the evolutionist does tend to get in the way and I don't think they realize it. Being right does not mean one is good at presenting evidence. Plus, it may be the claimers burden to extract the relevant evidence rather than force the other person to read an entire book. The claimer just may be too lazy to paraphrase. Related: BookStop, SelfStandingEvidence. --top''
** Maybe this wiki is not the best place to discuss "evolution" versus creationism - but I'll continue with some thoughts for now to enlighten you all. Evolution is a religion itself and basically makes little sense since everything can't magically just "evolve from nothing" (the original source of the evolution was what?). Nor does creationism make any sense since we have no idea what created what, and where. Agnosticism is the best practice - but people with egos and mental problems tend to think "evolution" explains how things "got here" even though "evolution" explains absolutely nothing except the evolving of things that were "already here somehow magically". No scientist worth his salt "believes" in either evolution or creationism - rather reasonable scientists are agnostic and see evolution as "how things evolve" but not as "how things got here". In other words, evolution does not act as a replacement for "creationism" as some people seem to think. Evolution is incomplete and "big bang" lunacies do not even begin to explain how the world began. Something cannot, for example, just magically "evolve" from nothing to become "something that is nothing". I absolutely hate it when some evolutionist comes by with a phrase like "I believe in evolution, not creationism" which completely ignores the fact that evolution doesn't answer any of the questions. All reasonable people should be agnostic on such subjects.
***Either you don't understand what evolutionary theory is, or you have unusual definitions for words like 'religion' or 'magic'. Evolution is not about evolving from nothing, and the theory is the only working one of how the complex can be derived from the simple. The world began when complex atoms came together due to gravity. Universal origin's an interesting question that, while curious, is separate from exploration of biological evolution.
*** ''Note that the topic of the original "starter" life is generally known as "Biogenesis". But as far as the standard creation-vs-evolution debate, the origin of mankind is usually the key issue, not the formation of life itself.''
*** {Creation is a valid hypothesis, but so far there's no significant evidence for it (except when Monsanto fucks up) such as source code comments in DNA or "Made on Orion III" tags. Gaps in evolutionary knowledge are not by themselves evidence of creation, because "unknown" is the default, not "creation". The religious often get the default thing all wrong.}
* Not only demands "proof" of your claims, but also proof of the third-party evidence you provide, and the TransitiveClosure thereof.

----

When a SocraticDialogue goes bad, often ''both'' sides view the other side as a HostileStudent. It's unfortunate that the SocraticMethod is so hard to do right.

''What the hostile student thinks of their teacher is irrelevant. It's trivial for a sufficiently disinterested, or honest, third-party to tell who's responding to the other party and who's simply restating their own opinions.''

I've read a few SocraticDialogue''''''s and I'm of the impression that Socrates is usually abusive to whomever he's having it with. Socrates usually has the "right" idea and he leads the lesser mind around through a lot of premises until he can say, "Gotcha!". I guess, though, that is different from the "modern" sense of teachers who let their students come up with the answer themselves, using thought-provoking questions. -- JohnDuncan
* No, modern versus ancient approaches are the same, not different. Consider the context that someone wants to be a pupil -- supposedly they want to learn. Is that their only venue? Of course not. They could alternatively attempt to teach themselves. Let's say that Socrates was self-taught, and then is sought-after by would-be pupils who cannot or prefer not to teach themseles. The latter are self-declaring themselves to be lesser minds, who consider themselves to be in need of being taught, rather than capable of teaching themselves. The rest follows.


''I constantly question people and projects and this questioning can often lead to confusion, unfortunately. When I question someone,  they may assume I'm looking for quick answers to solve ''my'' specific problem, when in fact I'm trying to solve their problems by posing questions that will lead them to answers (if they think hard enough about the questions I'm asking). Unfortunately rhetorical questioning and provoking questioning does not always go well in society. In fact it often goes wrong. I still use this method though, to help myself and help others (Eventually they catch on, maybe even after months, that I'm asking rhetorical questions or provoking questions.. and not that I'm looking for the questions to be directly answered for ''myself''). Someone I'm questioning will often naively say "does that answer your question? Do you have any more things you want me to clarify?" as if the questions I am asking are something they assume I want answered directly. It almost seems to me Americans are worse off, at least with clients I've dealt with, in that they fall for the questions as if they are yes/no style questions that can be immediately answered in a quick one line response or phone call conversation. They don't catch on to the fact that they are provoking questions, and not direct questions that should be answered.''

''Often I'm not questioning someone to obtain answers for myself. A lot of society, unfortunately, has not been introduced to the practice of someone on the other side posing critical questions and rhetorical questions, or provoking questions.''

Different cultures do indeed seem to react to such things differently. American-style capitalism pushes people to get-in-fix-and-get-out-fast. I've seen metric-based help-desk arrangements that try to quantify problems-solved-per-hour, etc. The East Coast is even more so in my experience. (Related: SovietShoeFactoryPrinciple)

----
Often can also be defined as ''"Lazy Student"'', these students don't want to work, and instead insist that certain concepts remain much simpler then the are.  Also, there are those that choose to remain ''"ignorant"'', and even worse, insist on remaining ignorant.  In both cases, these students seem to think that life is easier for them if they simply refuse to believe/acknowledge/understand/accept what they know is true, but that they do not want to work to understand.  You know they understand that the concept/truth is real, because they come to you to solve this type of problem over and over, but refuse to personally acknowledge that the path/information/facts are true.

* This. I used to teach English in China. I would sometimes have adult students who would tell me the English I was teaching was wrong. Many of these would tell me I spoke "farmer English" or "Canadian English" and that I had never heard the "real New York English" or "real Oxford English" that they imagined to be the most standard and sophisticated form of the language. Typically they would phrase it like this: "You fucka stupida famer foreigner. Me am speaka Oxa Forda Engrisha SO GUDA". And they would demand proof that my English was standard. Proof that I just couldn't provide to a beginner student who really didn't know much about the language or the culture. A couple guys even explained to me (in Chinese) that it was genetically impossible for a hairy monkey foreigner to understand English as well as as a Chinese person. 100% of the time they were just not in the mood to learn that day and knew that trying to derail the class into an argument would be a good way to not use their brains. When they were in a good mood and felt like studying, they were generally quite cooperative and friendly. - KC

* ''Sounds like they were testing and toying with you. Chinese are generally taught to be very respectful of teachers, but being a foreigner they may have looked for cracks in the seam, feeling that the usual "rules" of their society may not apply to you. Perhaps you could use the tension as part of the teaching experience, such as giving extra credit for proving your English is "wrong" using cite-able sources. '''Good teachers can make controversy part of the learning experience.''' Drama keeps students alert and engaged. As far as the "farmer" controversy, even if not entirely true, you could perhaps point out that roughly 50% of America is rural or come from a rural background, and thus understanding a rural dialect or accent is just as useful as "New York English" in practice. If they still ''really'' want "New York" English, perhaps give them references to instructors from that region. Clarify their goals, discuss the trade-offs, and help them achieve it. And maybe give them a taste of "real" farmer talk, giving Hee Haw style impressions, and explain how it differs from "generic" English. (You get the last laugh when the entire class is saying, "Therza snake in mah boots!") And throw in some Brooklyn dialect to contrast. They appear curious about regional dialects, so feed their curiosity. ''

----

/Quando mi hijita loquita/ insists one of her teachers is stupid & she can't resist tripping her up. I reminded her of the words of Lt Worf: There is no honor in preying upon the weak.

The Ferengi's disagreed.

----
See also HostileEvangelist