= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Typical Mind and Politics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (128)
I'm frequently a victim of "your needs are uncommon, therefore no one else has to accommodate them" type reasoning. A compromise is necessary: I can't demand that the people around me not eat any mint candy (much less that everyone stop using mint toothpaste lest I encounter them an hour later) just because the smell is intolerable to me. Slightly more common needs (that people not invade my personal space) or needs that are supported by societal distaste (that people not smoke cigarettes in my school buildings) get accommodated. In my case, I know these things are at least partly hardwired - oversensitivity to sensory stimuli is par for the course with Asperger's - but I haven't noticed anyone get more sympathetic to this sort of thing when I so inform them unless they've been my friend for a long time (I think non-friends assume I'm making it up to get my way). Even with my friends, I suspect it's because my long-term friends assume anything I don't like must be a consequence of my wiring. I've stopped bothering to explain that my dislike of ginger doesn't mean anything except that I don't like ginger.
There's a danger, in accommodating preferences because they are hardwired, a) that these preferences will seem completely intractable, with nothing on the part of the annoyed to be done and all the accommodation to be done by the annoyer; and/or b) that people resistant to the idea of preferences being hardwired will conclude from the use of this reasoning that if they don't have to believe that preferences are hardwired, then they don't have to take responsibility for accommodating others. The former is dangerous because - in the majority of cases - the annoyed can do something about the annoyance. It's rare that there is a noise next door so loud that earplugs will accomplish nothing, from which follows that to eliminate the annoyance, the noise doesn't necessarily have to be eliminated, just reduced enough that earplugs will do the rest. The second is dangerous because people who won't accommodate anyone else are... well... annoying, and I don't want to live in a society with those people.
Not to sound vindictive, but ...
You're also a victimizer of that type of reasoning too.
I actually don't mean this as a criticism (not completely, anyway ...) It just suggests to me that, per Yvain, we will all, to some extent, fall on both sides of that reasoning, depending on the issue, and we should watch for where we trivialize others' concerns.
I don't think that dredging up Alicorn's comment from a distant thread in order to accuse her of hypocrisy adds anything to this exchange. If you think that a claim of uncommon needs in finding romantic partners is germane to that discussion, it would be significantly more productive and less antagonistic to link to this thread over there.
Did you read to the final paragraph? The point wasn't to accuse Alicorn of hypocrisy (although that was an excellent example of the general point), nor was it to point out my unusual situation (which I already did in that other thread).
The point was that people who believe that their uncommon needs are not properly accomodated do the exact same thing to others and we should account for this in our disputes with others. I did not mean to imply Alicorn was somehow alone in this double standard, and I apologize if I made it seem that way.
It's not at all obvious to me how that comment is an instance of that reasoning.
-Claim that my needs are unusual? Check.
-Claim that no one else should be doing or should have done anything different to accomodate me? Check.
Implied connection of those views? Check.
-Obviousness of how linked comment and surrounding is an instance of quoted reasoning? Check.
-Annoyingness of this style of response? Check.
You haven't pointed out where in the comment I commit these behaviors, you've merely restated the kind of reasoning you've already accused me of.
Okay, here goes (and my remark applies to several of your comments but the linked one was representative):
There, first you identified how my situation was strange in one of three ways. Then, you listed things I should do to adapt:
There's nothing wrong with attempting to help with suggestions -- except for their grounding in ignorance of my situation -- but you are quite clearly saying that no one else should have done anything else accomodative on their end.
Therefore, you both claimed that my needs are unusual, and no one else needed to accomodate them.
Somehow, I don't think saying "You're doing everything right, your lack of success is the fault of misbehaving others, and I'll be sure to tell them so if I ever meet the people in your social circle" would have been germane or helpful. Is it possible that people in your social circle aren't giving you enough of a chance or giving you enough leeway for your quirks? Sure. That's totally possible. I can't do anything about that, so I didn't focus on it.
Secondly, I made no claims about your needs. I made statements of advice conditional on who you might or might not be acquainted with (I identified the relevant and mutually exclusive categories as: nobody, only men who haven't introduced you to any women, only men who don't know women, or some women who you find unacceptable). The only "need" that was involved was your interest in finding women who you could date, which, given the thread's context, was hardly unusual - and I never said it was!
The unusual need was not interest in finding women, but rather, interest in finding women while not having the superabundant resources you falsely assume everyone has. Remember, your original advice was basically, "Hey, just try your luck with one of the million women who have prefiltered you and see who you're spark-y with."
a.k.a. "You can't find any bread? Well, why not just draw down your cake stockpiles?"
You didn't seem to think that people like me could exist -- the very same unfortunate premise people treat you with.
SilasBarta claimed that he has special needs that are not being accommodated by the local dating advice. Alicorn claimed that there is something wrong with SilasBarta, so there is no reason for anyone to accomodate him.
Alternate reading:
SilasBarta claimed that he has special needs that are not being accommodated by the local dating advice. Alicorn claimed that there is something wrong with SilasBarta, and suggested ways to fix it so that the local dating advice could be used.
I made a series of "if" statements. I don't know who SilasBarta knows. I claim that something is wrong (and not necessarily "with him") if he knows exactly zero women. If he knows a nonzero number of women, the statement doesn't apply.
Okay, this is probably getting out of hand, but it was obvious even at the time that I didn't "know zero women".
Yes, Alicorn, it sure sucks when people don't understand your situation, doesn't it?