= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Absolute denial for atheists - 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 (571)
You said:
and further referred to it as an "error of linguistic expression".
I am saying that it's not an error. That women would generally use different words to describe the same thing does not mean that the man was in error to use those words. Those are the most correct and concise words in male language for what was said.
Many things that are said by men in few words must be said in many words for a woman to understand them, just as the reverse is true for things that women can say briefly to each other but require a lengthier explanation for a man to understand. This is normal and expected, since each gender has different common reference experiences, and therefore different shorthand.
What doesn't make any bloody sense is to insist that men (OR women) translate their every utterance into the other gender's language in advance of any question, then treat it as some terrible faux pas or "ethical violation" to fail to do so, or to classify the (correct-in-its-own-langauge) utterance as "linguistic error".
(Because to do so is basically to take the position that men are broken women (or vice versa).)
Instead, the reasonable/rational thing to do is, if you understand what was meant, then leave it alone. If you don't understand, ask politely. If you accidentally misunderstand and get into an argument, stop when you do understand, instead of blaming the other person for not having thought to translate their language to use another gender's reference experiences.
Is that clearer now?
What. The. Heck. You do not get your own language. If people use language that is hurtful, objectifying, and sexist, they do not get the excuse that they have an idiolect in which those things are magically no longer hurtful, objectifying, and sexist (all of which are bad things to be). It just does not work that way.
Okay, I'll try it on you. I think I understand what you meant, so it's not okay for me to feel any way at all about how you said it, or to care if you were rude, or to think that it reflects on your character if you go about saying hurtful things... hm, that doesn't seem to be the right thing to do. Maybe I didn't understand you. But when I have tried in the past to ask you what you mean, you have not been helpful. Perhaps what happened was that I accidentally misunderstood you and got into an argument. I should chalk that up to you being male, even though I know plenty of males who do not say such things - wait, that doesn't make sense either. Do you have other, less patronizing recommendations in your bag of tricks?
There is no such thing as hurtful(language). There is only considered_hurtful_by(language, person). See Eliezer's post about movie posters with swamp creatures carrying off "sexy" women for explanation, aka the "mind projection fallacy".
I didn't say it was "not okay" - I said it was "not useful". HUGE difference.
You are perfectly free to feel any way you like, but that doesn't make it useful, nor grant you any rights regarding whether others should agree with your feelings.
IOW, "not_helpful_to(pjeby_answers, Alicorn_understanding)"... but note that this does not equate to "not_helpful(pjeby)" or "not_trying_to_help(pjeby)", just as "repulsive_to(X, Alicorn)" does not equate to "repulsive(X)" or "unethical(X)".
Perhaps. I actually see it more as that people are trying to tell you things that are outside your current frame of reference, and you're telling them they're unethical or in error, when they are actually trying to be clear and helpful and say what they mean, and are puzzled why you're labeling them and their statements. (Even when someone knows male-female idiom translation inside and out, they don't always notice what they're doing, just like most people aren't aware of their own accent.)
Meanwhile, AFAICT, you are taking other people's words and translating them to what you would mean if you used those words, instead of graciously accepting others explanation of what they meant by those words.
Once you get to the point where you're arguing about the definitions of the words, there isn't really an argument any more -- something that also should be clear from Eliezer's past posts.
In short, none of the stuff I'm bringing up is "about" gender issues -- or I wouldn't even have bothered with this conversation in the first place.
I brought this up only because it's directly relevant to core Yudkowskian principles like the mind projection fallacy, arguing over definitions, and not treating one class of human being as a broken version of another class of human being.
In other words, it's about rationality.
That would be if -- and only if -- we had successfully reached understanding, and the misunderstanding was rooted in a gender-based language difference. (i.e., the context of my comments)
Do you have any evidence for the male-language/female-language thing? Isn't it at least as likely that men talk about concepts that offend women, and women talk about concepts that elude men? (I speak as a male)
The stuff you're talking about here is mainly communication problems. I'm not convinced you and alicorn are having a communication problem...
As she's pointed out, we've been having at least one, and probably several. However, my comments about language were in relation to a different communication problem. (i.e., the one between Alicorn and others)
I don't think so, because the key is unexpressed connotations.
A non-sexist man can talk about "getting" women without this having (in his mind) any negative connotation, because "of course" he wants something more than just sex, expects to settle down with only one partner after a bit of field-playing, and would never intentionally hurt or manipulate anyone. IME, however, women tend to prefer that all of these things be explicitly stated or disclaimed... just like there are plenty of things women expect to be obvious to men, but which men would much rather hear explicitly stated.
For example, Alicorn was trying to be polite to me during our thread, by NOT directly stating how rude she thought I was being, because from her POV, that idea was a clear and obvious implication of something that she said in a meta-example nested within a comment of hers. (This completely escaped me until she pointed it out in email later.)
Anyway, the gender distinctions here are really secondary -- the key point is that people with different reference experiences expect different things to be "obvious", and are very likely to think you clueless or socially miscalibrated when you don't pick up on them without it being spelled out.
That's why Alicorn ends up wanting to know why guys "don't just say that" -- they think that the rest "goes without saying", just as she expected her oblique implications to me to be understood without being made explicit.
(And I would find it difficult to list all the times in the history of my marriage where a conflict boiled down to, "So why didn't you just say that?" -- i.e., one person expecting the other to pick up on an "obvious" connotation, where the other person would've highly valued an explicit statement of such.)
Anyway, my point was simply that it's not reasonable to demand that everybody go around explaining all the connotations of their statements, all the time, just because your personal connotations for those statements result in a negative emotional reaction. It's more useful (and less stressful) to translate that person or group's statements in future. That is, to do the expansion internal to yourself, rather than insist on other people doing the translation for you.
(I wish I could've stated all this as clearly yesterday, but I was operating with only 3 hours sleep and probably should've stayed away from the computer altogether.)
Really, I agree with everything you say here.
However, I tend to take Alicorn's point of view; given that some (many?) men really do think of women in objectifying ways, there's no way for Alicorn (or anyone) to know if a given offensive phrase is male-speak, or if it ought to be literally interpreted. If one actually knows the speaker well, one could probably tell if such a sentiment is consistent with their personality, but it seems like you'd have to know someone very well to make a reliable judgment there.
Therefore, I do think it is worth the effort to avoid speaking of women in ways that are objectifying. I don't think it really takes that much effort once one is aware of it...
One could say that Alicorn ought to just assume the best about transgressors, and perhaps she should, but I think there's some value in enforcing the concept that it's Not Ok to treat human beings as objects.
And more to the point, we've already had a similar conversation and I thought it was apparent at that time that there's a certain way we want to avoid writing around here, in the interest of inclusivity.
Don't get me wrong: I don't object to being considerate. I just don't think it's appropriate to try to enforce being considerate. It tends to backfire, for one thing, as people generally don't like being told what to do, thereby creating perverse incentives. It also tends to make people on both sides of the discussion "flip the bozo bit" and assume the people on the other side are just jerks, instead of any increased understanding being reached.
(Of course, in that respect, there's an extent to which I did the exact same thing I criticized Alicorn for! Mea culpa.)
Is it really the case that women would respond positively towards this kind of "full disclosure"? If we are to take dating experts seriously, men are much better off if they leave such things unsaid. I agree with Steve Rayhawk that what most people really object to is depersonalization, i.e. the absence of empathy: as long as it is known with certainty that this is not your intent, you are in practice free to objectify as much as you want.
Different context. First, what dating experts say about creating relationships doesn't always apply to sustaining them. Try being married for 13 years without ever explicitly telling your partner how much you love them!
Second, almost everything I've been saying is very strictly grounded in the context of a specific statement made here, and the subsequent discussion. So when I said "prefer that all of these things be explicitly stated or disclaimed", I meant in the social context of a man stating an intention to "get" a woman, that is not specifically directed at the subject of his statement, and which occurs in the presence of persons other than that man, and the woman. (A very narrow context, in other words.)
Also, "respond positively" does not equal "prefer". Someone can "prefer" one thing, and yet respond positively to another... which is the usual point being made by those dating experts.
Rest assured, there is some communication problem. I'm sufficiently convinced that pjeby doesn't get my point that I have given up. Whether I understand him or not, I couldn't tell you for sure.
Alicorn:
What if I told you that talking about "getting a woman" was a direct and honest expression of my most inner desires, that I really did view her in that objectifying way, and that I considered this attitude perfectly natural and healthy, and that, furthermore, I find it objectionable for others to consider it their perogative to correct me on this?
And that I very often find "being offended" to be an offensive behavior in its own right?
And that I heavily discount verbal contradiction from other males because it signals a very well-established mating posture, that of the helpful and supplicant beta male?