Let's examine these notions:
fake smile: a fake smile is threatening, if you know it for what it is, because it signals benevolence when there is none. The response to threats is either thrill (if you're confident you can overcome them) or fear (if you aren't).
obviously fake smile: not only is it threatening, it also shows social incompetence on the side of the smiler. A plausible fake smile that you know to be fake is an invitation to a clever battle of manipulation (although you run the risk of an illusion of double transparency).
A fake smile that is too easy to recognize as fake is distressing because you know the smiler is hiding something, but the smiler doesn't. You don't really know how to deal with the asymmetry of the situation, you feel some kind of pity/contempt, and this adds a component of uneasiness to the threat.
It stops being thrilling/scary and it becomes creepy; the sensation you associate with threats of a vague magnitude that are quite easy but also quite unpleasant to deal with, such as arachnids, roaches, some reptiles and amphibians, rodents, or a very infatuated and very low-status person of the opposite sex (or, worse if you're straight, the same sex) asking you to be their partner for the prom dance.
A tiger isn't creepy. A stampeding elephant isn't creepy. A rapist with a knife isn't creepy. A cokroach is creepy. A mouse is creepy. A proselytizing person is creepy, and so is anyone who's trying to sell you something you think you don't want. A stalker who built a shrine to your image is creepy.
Dealing with the threat is easy; just say "No, thank you." or "Stop doing that!". Just squash the bug and move on. And yet, you're paralyzed by the unpleasant expectations of squishing that bug, which are only marginally better than letting it crawl all over the place.
As it turns out, there's more complicated, delicate ways of dealing with the threat that involve capturing the creepy crawly and releasing it somewhere where its presence won't bother you.
Ahem. Sorry, I had to get the "creep" theory out of my head.
Being excessively nice to people is basically forcing upon them an inconditional gift that they will feel pressured to reciprocate. You're non-forcefully/passive-aggressively forcing them to do something their guts tell them they do not want to do.
Obviously, if you're a malevolent asshole, you'll find it very unsettling that other people reciprocate your violence with kindness. You're comfortable with reciprocal violence, it makes you feel righteous, balanced, competitive, on edge, etc. People turning the other cheek at you, on the other hand, are forcing you to reciprocate their kindness, which you do not want to do. This "creeps" them out.
Initially, I did not understand why seeing others treat each other in nicer ways than are routine for you would cause you to actively express disapproval of their action. But there might be a peer pressure effect going on; maybe they feel pressured by the strange-acting pair to reconsider the way they do things, and don't like that pressure, and act against it. From that perspective, it is perfectly possible to threaten someone without meaning to and perhaps without even being aware of their existence.
I would like to analyze my instinctive reaction here rather than express it. Please support me in this.
I don't think my idea of "obviously fake smile" maps to social incompetence. It just implies insincerity. Many people, even those who are not malevolent assholes, dislike seeing insincerity.
That's the first-level idea, and I am prepared to reject it because of the possibility that you may, in fact, be sincere about saying things like that. But being excessively nice is not always an incidental choice to make. In fact, I believe that I would pret...
This is my first attempt at starting a casual conversation on LW where people don't have to worry about winning or losing points, and can just relax and have social fun together.
So, Big Bang Theory. That series got me wondering. It seems to be about "geeks", and not the basement-dwelling variety either; they're highly successful and accomplished professionals, each in their own field. One of them has been an astronaut, even. And yet, everything they ever accomplish amounts to absolutely nothing in terms of social recognition or even in terms of personal happiness. And the thing is, it doesn't even get better for their "normal" counterparts, who are just as miserable and petty.
Consider, then; how would being rationalists would affect the characters on this show? The writing of the show relies a lot on laughing at people rather than with them; would rationalist characters subvert that? And how would that rationalist outlook express itself given their personalities? (After all, notice how amazingly different from each other Yudkowsky, Hanson, and Alicorn are, just to name a few; they emphasize rather different things, and take different approaches to both truth-testing and problem-solving).
Note: this discussion does not need to be about rationalism. It can be a casual, normal discussion about the series. Relax and enjoy yourselves.
But the reason I brought up that series is that its characters are excellent examples of high intelligence hampered by immense irrationality. The apex of this is represented by Dr. Sheldon Cooper, who is, essentially, a complete fundamentalist over every single thing in his life; he applies this attitude to everything, right down to people's favorite flavor of pudding: Raj is "axiomatically wrong" to prefer tapioca, because the best pudding is chocolate. Period. This attitude makes him a far, far worse scientist than he thinks, as he refuses to even consider any criticism of his methods or results.