= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pragmatist comments on "Stupid" questions thread - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (850)
I travel long-distance by plane alone quite a lot, and I like talking to people. If the person I'm sitting with looks reasonably friendly, I often start with something like "Hey, I figure we should introduce ourselves to each other right now, because I find it almost excruciatingly awkward to sit right next to somebody for hours without any communication except for quick glances. Why the hell do people do that? Anyway, I'm so-and-so. What's your name?"
I've gotten weird looks and perfunctory responses a couple of times, but more often than not people are glad for the icebreaker. There are actually a couple of people I met on planes with whom I'm still in regular touch. On the downside, I have sometimes got inextricably involved in conversation with people who are boring and/or unpleasant. I don't mind that too much, but if you are particularly bothered by that sort of thing, maybe restrict your stranger-talking to contexts where you have a reasonable idea about the kind of person you're going to be talking with. Anyway, my advice is geared towards a very specific sort of situation, but it is a pretty common situation for a lot of people.
Data point counter to the other two replies you've gotten: I -- and, I perceive, most people, both introverted and extraverted -- am neither overjoyed nor horrified to have someone attempt to start a conversation with me on an airplane. I would say that as long as you can successfully read negative feedback, and disengage from the conversation, it is absolutely reasonable to attempt to start a conversation with a stranger next to you on an airplane.
Now, I can't tell if the objection is to 1) the mere act of attempting to talk to someone on an airplane at all, which I can't really understand, or 2) to the particular manner of your attempt, which does seem a bit talkative / familiar, and could perhaps be toned down.
On the one hand, I want to start such conversations. On the other hand, I have a problem with approaching people in situations where they cannot get away. If I make the person sitting next to me on a plane uncomfortable, they can't just leave the area.
One solution is to look for signs of disinterest or discomfort and disengage from the conversation if you do. If you have trouble picking up on those things, you can always try being more passive and seeing if they pick up the slack or try to engage you further.
Insofar as possible, I try to not even glance at people beside me on a plane unless I'm talking to them.
Data point: I would find this annoying to the point of producing seething, ulcerating rage. Please back the fuck off and leave others alone.
Yikes. Duly noted. That is a useful data point, and it's the sort of the thing I need to keep in mind. I'm an extrovert temperamentally, and I grew up in a culture that encourages extroversion. This has mostly been an apparent advantage in social situations, because the people from whom you get an overt response are usually people who either share or appreciate that personality trait. But I've begun to realize there is a silent minority (perhaps a majority?) of people who find behavior like mine excessively familiar, annoying, perhaps even anxiety-inducing. And for various reasons, these people are discouraged from openly expressing their preferences in this regard in person, so I only hear about their objections in impersonal contexts like this.
I usually try to gauge whether people are receptive to spontaneous socializing before engaging in it, but I should keep in mind that I'm not a perfect judge of this kind of thing, and I probably still end up engaging unwilling participants. There is something selfish and entitled about recruiting a stranger into an activity I enjoy without having much of a sense of whether they enjoy it at all (especially if there are social pressures preventing them from saying that they don't enjoy it), and I should probably err on the side of not doing it.
I would guess that the part that caused such a strong reaction was this:
You're not just introducing yourself: you are putting pressure on the other person to be social, both with the notion that you would find sitting in silence "excruciatingly" uncomfortable, and with the implication that a lack of communication is unusual and unacceptable.
Usually if somebody would introduce themselves and try to start a conversation, one could try to disengage, either with a polite "sorry, don't feel like talking" or with (more or less) subtle hints like giving short one-word responses, but that already feels somewhat impolite and is hard for many people. Your opening makes it even harder to try to avoid the conversation.
Hmm... good point. What I typed isn't exactly what I usually say, but I do tend to project my personal opinion that sitting quietly side by side is awkward and alien (to me) behavior. I can see how conveying that impression makes it difficult to disengage. And while I do find the silence pretty damn awkward, other people have no obligation to cater to my hang-ups, and its kind of unfair to (unconsciously) manipulate them into that position. So on consideration, I'm retracting my initial post and reconsidering how I approach these conversations.
My suggestion: say “Hi” while looking at them; only introduce yourself to them if they say “Hi” back while looking back at you, and with an enthusiastic-sounding tone of voice.
(Myself, I go by Postel's Law here: I don't initiate conversations with strangers on a plane, but don't freak out when they initiate conversations with me either.)
I think sitting really close beside someone I would be less likely to want to face them - it would feel too intimate.
So, you wrote an imaginary, exaggerated version of how you would offer conversation, to which RolfAndreassen responds with an imaginary, exaggerated version of his response, and SaidAchmiz adds "Some such people apparently think", and others chip in with "I've heard stories of" and "the dude is just trying to break the ice", and...and.
Where has reality got to in all this?
FWIW, I would find your approach obnoxiously presumptuous and would avoid any further conversation. Look at this:
In other words, "You will be hurting me if you do not talk to me. If you do not talk to me you are an evil, hurtful person." Sorry, I don't care.
This is resentment at other people not magically conforming to your wishes. I don't expect you to magically conform to mine. I'll just stifle that conversation at birth if it ever happens. I put the telephone down on cold callers too.
I didn't say it was exaggerated (nor did I think it when I wrote the grandparent), although now that you mention it, perhaps the adverb "excruciatingly" is an exaggerated version of what I usually express.
I don't think "in other words" means what you think it does. Also, this paraphrase is pretty rich coming from someone who was just complaining about exaggeration in other comments.
Apart from that, yeah, I see your point.
Well then, in what other way does it differ from what you usually say?
Sorry, I edited to qualify before I read your response. The major difference is probably that it is delivered more as part of a conversation than a monolog. I don't just rattle off that script as soon as I encounter the person without waiting for a response.
I usually take an army1987-type approach in this situation, but here's another possible compromise.
Recently I was flying and wanted to ask someone next to me about the novel they were reading. I waited until half an hour before landing to talk to them, to set a limit on the conversation's length — no implicit request they chat with me for the whole flight. When I did talk to them, I (briefly!) acknowledged the interruption, and kept it specific: "Pardon the intrusion, but what do you think of the novel? I've read some of John Lanchester's nonfiction but I haven't read Capital yet and I've been thinking about picking it up."
Asking a specific question lowers the conversational stakes since someone can just answer the question and then resume what they were doing without violating politeness norms. (That time my question led to a full-blown conversation anyway, but the important thing was giving the other person a chance to gracefully avoid that.)
Things are of course different when you want to improvise small talk instead of asking about a specific thing, but you can still use external circumstances to implicitly limit the conversation's potential length, and ask about something arbitrary as a conversation starter. (This is no doubt a reason English people making small talk stereotypically talk about the weather. English weather's variable enough that there's always a little to say about it, it's a bland topic that won't offend, everyone in England has experience of it, and there are well-known cached responses to weather-related comments, so bringing up the weather doesn't demand much mental effort from other people. And since it's a low-commitment topic it's easy to round off the conversation smoothly, or to make brief, just-polite-enough noncommittal responses to signal an unwillingness to chat.)
I would like to put in a vote for middle of the road on this one. I think rolf is seriously over-reacting but I would probably be annoyed at a stranger starting up a conversation in that fashion.
As far as I'm concerned, although people like RolfAndreasson exist, they should in no way be included in the model of 'average person'. Seething rage at a mere unsolicited introduction is totally un-ordinary and arguably self-destructive behaviour, and I have no compunction about saying that RA definitely needs to recalibrate his own response, not you.
My impression of your introductory thing is that it's overly involved, maybe slightly overbearing. You don't need to justify yourself, just introduce yourself. A general rule that I've found reliable for social situations is "Don't explain things if explanations haven't been requested (unless you happen to really enjoy explaining this thing)"; it stops me from coming across as (or feeling) desperate and lets people take responsibility for their own potential discomfort.
Don't err on the side of not doing it. People are already encouraged to be way too self-involved, isolated, and "individualistic". Doing things together is good, especially if they challenge you both (whether that's by temporary discomfort, new concepts, or whatever). If they don't want to be involved let them take responsibility for communicating that, because it is their responsibility.
You are clearly an extrovert, and that's fine, but please refrain from speaking as if introverts are inherently inferior and incorrect. It's incredibly annoying and insulting.
Also, you say
And then you say
Do you not see the irony of forcing yourself on other people, despite their wishes, and justifying this by saying that they're too self-involved?
Like RolfAndreassen said: please back the fuck off and leave others alone.
You are sitting so close to someone that parts of your bodies probably touch, you smell them, you feel them, you hear them. The one doing the forcing with all that is the evil aircraft company, and though it's customary to regard such forced close encounters as "non-spaces" by pretending that no, you're not crammed in with a stranger for hours and hours, the reality is that you are.
The question is how you react to that, and offering to acknowledge the presence of the other and to find out their wishes regarding the flight is the common sense thing to do. Like pinging a server, if you will. If you don't ask, you won't find out.
Well, if there are non-verbal hints (looking away etc), by all means, stay quiet. However, you probably clearly notice that a protocol which forbids offering to start a conversation would result in countless acquaintances and friends never meeting, even if both may have preferred conversation.
In the end, even to an introvert, simply stating "Oh hello, I'm so and so, unfortunately I have a lot on my mind, I'm sure you understand" isn't outside the bounds of the reasonable. Do you disagree?
Only for an extrovert.
Yes.
As someone who has been "trapped" in dozens of conversations with someone seemingly nice but uninteresting it's surprisingly hard to straight up tell someone you don't want to talk to them. I
Exactly. I would be far more ok with a social norm that condoned introducing oneself to (and starting conversations with) people on plans if there was also a social norm that condoned saying "I don't want to talk to you. Kindly go away and leave me alone." Current social norms regard this as rude. (I take it our esteemed extrovert colleagues see the problem here.)
Datapoint: I don't care for Achmiz's hostility but I do agree with his point here. There is no polite way to explicitly tell someone you don't want to communicate. This is a bug that should be fixed. It harms both parties; the silent one can't indicate that without paying a social cost, and the talkative one can't really be sure they're not annoying their counterpart.
(it is possible the talkative one doesn't actually care if they're annoying their counterpart. If so, fuck them.)
FWIW, I am an introvert, and I agree with you. I have no desire to start conversations with strangers on the plane, but I understand that extroverts do. I refuse them politely along the lines that you suggest here, and nobody has ever thought me rude because of it. (Or if they did, they were polite enough not to say so.)
Personally, as quite an extreme introvert, I would probably not make any excuses to get out of the conversation, but I would wish they had never spoken up in the first place.
We live in a culture of extroversion, where transparent excuses to avoid talking to another person overwhelmingly tend to be viewed as rude.
While I sympathize with extroverts who would be discomforted by a long train or plane ride in close proximity with no conversation, starting one in a place where the other person does not have the option to physically disengage, even without applying intentional pressure against their doing so, does carry a risk of discomforting the other person.
Please stop discouraging people from introducing themselves to me in circumstances where it would be welcome.
Well, it seems we have a conflict of interests. Do you agree?
If you do, do you think that it is fair to resolve it unilaterally in one direction? If you do not, what should be the compromise?
To concretize: some people (introverts? non-NTs? a sub-population defined some other way?) would prefer people-in-general to adopt a policy of not introducing oneself to strangers (at least in ways and circumstances such as described by pragmatist), because they prefer that people not introduce themselves to them personally.
Other people (extraverts? NTs? something else?) would prefer people-in-general to adopt a policy of introducing oneself to strangers, because they prefer that people introduce themselves to them personally.
Does this seem like a fair characterization of the situation?
If so, then certain solutions present themselves, some better than others.
We could agree that everyone should adopt one of the above policies. In such a case, those people who prefer the other policy would be harmed. (Make no mistake: harmed. It does no good to say that either side should "just deal with it". I recognize this to be true for those people who have preferences opposite to my own, as well as for myself.)
The alternative, by construction, would be some sort of compromise (a mixed policy? one with more nuance, or one sensitive to case-specific information? But it's not obvious to me what such a policy would look like), or a solution that obviated the conflict in the first place.
Your thoughts?
Yes. We also have interests in common, but yes.
Better to resolve it after considering inputs from all parties. Beyond that it depends on specifics of the resolution.
Several of the objections to the introduction suggest guidelines I would agree with: keep the introduction brief until the other person has had a chance to respond. Do not signal unwillingness to drop the conversation. Signaling the opposite may be advisable.
Yeah. Not that I always want to talk to someone, but sometimes I do.
Yes.
I think people sometimes conflate "it is okay for me to do this" with "this does no harm" and "this does no harm that I am morally responsible for" and "this only does harm that someone else is morally responsible for, e.g. the victim"
Working out such a policy could be a useful exercise. Some relevant information would be: when are introductions more or less bad, for those who prefer to avoid them.
Like this (I mean the first paragraph, not the second).
Only in a very isolated point of view is introducing yourself to someone nearby an invasion. The rest of the world regards it as an ordinary action. Saying that you've got a different temperament does NOT excuse you from being an ordinary human being who can handle other people doing socially normal things that you have not yet explicitly okayed.
As a stranger, If I walk up to you and randomly try to hug you, THAT'S an invasion. If I try to talk to you, that's just Tuesday (so to speak).
Please note that I'm not in any way suggesting anyone should force their company on another. I'm just saying, if you have ANY major reaction to something as ordinary as someone trying to introduce themselves to you, it is YOU that has the problem and you should be looking at yourself to see why you are having this extreme reaction to a non-extreme circumstance. On the other side of the equation, if you have introduced yourself and received a prompt and clear rejection, if you react majorly to that in any way (including forcing your continued company on them), you also have a problem of a similar nature.
If anyone is on either side of that equation, they have a problem with their emotional calibration (and as an antecedent to that, their habits of thinking). Your emotions need to respond mildly to ordinary occurrences and more strongly to extraordinary occurrences; that's one way to tell how well connected to the reality of things you are.
Also, it may not be obvious to you, but extroverts are almost as isolated as introverts in our modern culture. Merely talking with people doesn't mean you're getting outside of yourself. You have to actually OPEN your mind, surrender your preconceptions, and engage in an honest exchange. This is hard for almost everyone, everyone has trust issues. Extroverts are just better at appearing to 'get along well' socially, but perhaps even worse at actually connecting with people on any real level (as far as I can tell, we just get lucky sometimes through sheer volume of exposure and somewhat greater willingness to relax control).
The sense in which I'm promoting getting involved is not a 'do stuff! with people! cause it feels good!' sense -- that's just the how. I'm trying to point out that when you really get involved, you stop thinking you're so fucking right, stop being so short-sightedly involved in your immediate problems, and start looking at things in a more neutral, realistic way; And that's priceless, something that EVERYONE needs.
(and I also mean it in the sense that Kawoomba mentions, that "you don't really know that well just from a tiny initial taste, whether this person is someone worth having in your life." If they aren't allowed to even try to know you better, then you are undoubtedly missing out on some amazing people who would contribute a lot to your life)
"Rest of the world" meaning where? This is actually quite an abnormal action in some parts of the world, depending on how strongly the culture encourages extroversion.
Do you think that it's similarly problematic if a person is highly discomforted by people reasoning using tribal politics and refusing to consider issues on their individual merits? It's totally ordinary behavior, after all.
A person can be poorly psychologically calibrated for their environment without being defective and in need of change.
Most introverts actually have an easier time having deep, honest exchanges than extroverts do. They're also less likely to agree that their lives would be improved by doing it more frequently with strangers. I'd recommend checking out this book, since it seems like you have a somewhat misaligned sense of what it implies for a person to be introverted.
Yes, they do need to change... their environment. :-)
(Generally, this can be much more easily and effectively achieved by starting to hang around different people than by trying to modify the ones they're already hanging around with.)
I agree that approaching strangers is more frowned upon, say, in Japan. Perhaps 'rest of the western world' would have been a better choice of words.
You have the totally wrong sense of what I meant by ordinary. Try fitting what you said into the definition "both normal and healthy"; it doesn't.
Defectiveness is really a subject that I'd prefer to keep out of any equation which is talking about people. Anyway, as far as I can see 'in need of change' holds true as long as said reaction impacts on your ability to live an effective and satisfying life. Personally my impression is that any major repression of emotions leads to personal problems (of the 'excessively cold / unable or unwilling to relate' kind).
People are disinclined to agree with a number of propositions that seem to hold true, particularly regarding social interactions and universal human faults. Mere disagreement doesn't really constitute any evidence against those propositions.
I do understand, though, that introverts general preference for planned, controlled actions and everything fitting together as far as possible, would lead to disliking interaction with strangers, But as far as I can see, extroverts and introverts both need to try and balance themselves by taking on the virtues demonstrated by their opposites. I don't regard introversion and extraversion as value neutral, rather, I regard them both as lopsided.
Sure, I'll read that IFF you read The Successful Self. It's certainly true that I find introverts frustrating -- sometimes it seems like the world is divided into those who get it but can't relate to me (Introverts) and those who can relate to me but don't get it (Extraverts)*.
* (for most given values of 'it')
I'll see if it's in my library network.
Having read Quiet Power, I certainly appreciate the recommendation, as it is a fascinating book. It has helped somewhat elaborate my model of introversion/extraversion. I especially liked the chapter comparing Western and Eastern social norms and their consequences.
What it hasn't done is told me anything surprising about introverts -- all the new information fits quite well into my existing model, which I derived mainly from Dorothy Rowe's books and conversation with a particular introvert.
So, either I have failed to realize the significance of something I read, or my model is not actually misaligned in the way you thought. Could you be specific about what problem you saw?
(on reflection, I think my whole stance on this subject is orthogonal to the idea of temperament. My perception is that most of the thread starting at my original comment can be boiled down to RalfAndreasson and SaidAchmiz asserting "Don't try to expand your social horizons in this particular way, because it invokes strong negative reactions in me", and my responding "No, DO try. You may need it and there are others that need it, and trying is better than not trying in general. Individual emotional reactions, whether yours or others, shouldn't get a look in as rationales for doing or not doing things.".
No doubt I've idealized the clarity of my message there, but the point is this isn't about marginalizing introverts, it's about not committing the error of treating feelings as any kind of strong evidence, and about the general strength of choosing to try as a policy. Introverts try to arrange things so they can take time to reflect, extroverts try to meet people and do exciting things. Those are both fine and ordinary. If these intents happen to conflict, that's for the individuals involved to resolve, not social norms.
Even though that might satisfy introverts' dislike of conflict somewhat, AFAICS there is no way to implement 'don't disturb my feelings' into social norms without being oppressive -- political correctness being an excellent example of this. Feelings may seem significant or even overwhelming, but I'll stand by the statement that they don't have much worth in decisions.)
Eh, I rambled. Hopefully that clarified something in someone's mind, at least ;)
I really recommend not framing that sort of thing as a series of orders mixed with insults.
You mean it's not taken for granted that me, you, and everyone have this excessive belief that their conclusions are correct, have difficulty accurately thinking about long term things and the big picture, and in general have tunnel vision? Those premises seem to be solidly supported by neuroscience as well as well covered in LessWrong articles .
FWIW I wrote that from the point of view of seeing my own behaviour and being frustrated with it, not aiming to insult anyone else. I was hoping to invoke the sense of 'yes, I see myself do this, and it's frustrating and ridiculous and I want to change it' rather than insulting anyone. I'm not sure how to change it without losing that sense.
And uh.. I don't see the order thing at all (at least in the section you quoted). Unless you think that the claim that we need to see things more realistically is anything but stating the obvious.
My apologies on that last bit-- I just saw "stop thinking you're so fucking right, stop being so short-sightedly involved in your immediate problems, and start looking at things in a more neutral, realistic way" and reacted without checking, instead of seeing that you'd actually written "when you really get involved, you stop thinking you're so fucking right, stop being so short-sightedly involved in your immediate problems, and start looking at things in a more neutral, realistic way".
At the moment, I have 8 upvotes (83% positive) on the grandparent, and 4 upvotes (83% positive) on my retraction. This is weird. My retraction isn't based on anything complicated, it was a simple misreading.
It's not that I think I have too many upvotes on the retraction, though 4 might be a little high-- I think of 2 as more typical. I'm just wondering why I didn't lose more of the upvotes on the grandparent.
I'm hoping it's just a matter of fewer people reading a thread as it gets older.
You continue to speak as if extroversion is the norm and introversion is an aberration, and as if more extroversion is good. Not everyone agrees; don't assume that you're saying obvious things here. For example:
Well, I guess that's my own problem then, isn't it? Do you suppose I might resent the idea that you (the extrovert) can just decide that I (the introvert) have this problem ("missing out on some amazing people") and undertake to fix it for me by inserting yourself into interactions with me? Do you think maybe I'm the one who should be deciding whether this is a problem at all, and whether/how I should fix it?
Great. Maybe everyone does need it. But kindly do not take it upon yourself to force this wonderful thing on people by interacting with them against their will. (This, by the way, is a general principle, applicable far more widely than introductions.)
I note that the social norms are written (so to speak) by the extroverts. So maybe reconsider reasoning from "this is a social norm" to "this is okay" or even to "a supermajority of humans, even most introverts, believe this to be okay".
In general, savageorange, you seem to be well-intentioned; but I read in your posts a whole lot of typical mind fallacy and also a heavy dose of being oblivious to the experience of introverts. I don't mean to be hostile, but given that most introverts prefer not to protest (being introverted and all), I think it's best that I speak up.
You are claiming to speak for all introverts, which turns this into an "introvert v extrovert" discussion. In other words, you are saying that half the population is forcing themselves onto the introverted half of the population. In reality, introverts are often the MOST happy that someone else initiated a conversation that they would be too shy to start themselves.
In reality, the situation is more like "NTs v non-NTs", and you are speaking for the non-NT part of the population. The same way you say half the population shouldn't force their preferences on the other half, I'm sure you can agree that 5% of the population shouldn't force their preferences (of non-interaction) onto the other 95%. Especially when the cost of nobody ever initiating conversations is significantly higher than the cost of being momentarily bothered by another person.
Actionable advice (for stopping an unwanted interaction): Answer in monosyllables or "hmm.." sounds. DON'T look at the person and smile. Maintain a neutral expression. Pull out your phone or a book, and direct your attention towards it, instead of the person.
Ways to end the conversation in a polite way: Say "Well, it's very nice to meet you." then turn your attention to your book/phone, OR add "but I'm at a really good part in this book, and I want to see what happens next....I really need to get this done... I'm really tired and was hoping to rest on the flight...etc." It's alright if the reason is vague. It is generally understood that providing a weak excuse is just a polite way of saying "no", and everyone plays along.
Perhaps. Would you agree that there is much heavier overlap between "NT" and "extrovert", and "non-NT" and "introvert", than vice versa?
"half the population shouldn't force their preferences on the other half" is an inaccurate generalization of what I said; my claims were far more specific. As such, no, I can't agree the 95% / 5% thing. The point is that it depends on the preference in question. You shouldn't force your desire to interact with me on me; conversely, it seems perfectly ok for me to "force" my desire not to interact with you, on you. The situation is not symmetric. It is analogous to "why are you forcing your preference not to get punched in the face on me?!"
First, I'd like to say thank you for bothering to include concrete advice. This is a practice I endorse. (In this case, the specific advice provided was known to me, but the thought is a good one.)
That said, it is my experience that the kind of people who force interactions on strangers very often ignore such relatively subtle hints (or consider them rude if they notice them at all).
The problem here is that this is a difference between saying 'you can do this' and saying 'you can't do this / I have a right to be left alone'.
You CAN arrange to be left alone. I CAN notice some genuine, reliable cue that you want to be left alone, and leave you alone. I CAN attempt to interact with you. You CAN reject that attempt (either rudely or with some tact). As soon as you get into saying what you CAN'T do or what I CAN'T do, that shows that you've stopped trying to genuinely support your own position and switched to attacking the opposing position. As far as I can see, that is inherently a losing game, just like the way hatred and revenge are losing games.
(and no, it is not, in any way, comparable to preferring not to be punched in the face. More comparable to preferring not to exercise, or perhaps preferring not to vote.)
What of minority rights? I think you've come to a pretty repugnant conclusion on accident.
My brain always flags this as an error (instead of the correct "by accident") and gets annoyed. Am I being too sensitive? Googling tells me that "on accident" is a minority usage that probably doesn't actually count as an error...
Not all introverted people are shy, and vice versa. Personally, I do not have a degree of shyness that holds me back from the level of social contact I want.
... But I feel uncomfortable lying to disengage with another person. As a general policy I prefer to tell the truth lest I lapse in holding up a deception, and this is definitely not a case where everyone recognizes a falsehood as a white lie to disengage politely which should not be taken as offensive if uncovered.
Data ("data"?) point: I test reliably as NF (ENFP, specifically) and SaidAchmiz's objections seem quite similar to my father, who is clearly (by both of our estimations, and tests) NT (INTJ). I can think of another relevant person, who tests as INFP and seems to be at pains to encourage interaction, and yet another who is also ENFP and similarly tries hard to encourage interaction. So I was rather surprised to see you painting SaidAchmiz's objections as non-NT.
My current model suggests that what I am promoting is F values (possibly NF, but I don't know any SF's well enough to compare) with an extraverted slant
(but not as much of an extraverted slant as SaidAchmiz seemed to think, I agree that even if at the time being drawn out of ourselves is an unpleasant experience, everyone, extraverted or introverted, gains something of real worth if they really attain that level of self-detachment regularly.)
I think it was NT as in NeuroTypical (not on the autism spectrum), not NT as in intuitive-thinking.
NancyLebovitz's correction is accurate, but here is another "data" point, because why not:
I test as INTP (strongly INT, with a closer to even split between P and J, though reliably favoring P).
To put things briefly, it looks like you've reversed most of the things I said.
I'm talking about "you" (as in, any given individual that finds themselves in a situation where they think they are too self-involved). I can't fix anything for you and I don't want to. I'm just saying, this seems to be one of the things that needs to be done. By me. By anyone who thinks they are too self-involved (and by anyone who doesn't think that but still IS too self-involved). Certainly if they are aware of a sense of excessive self-involvement and they want to change that, the only way to do so seems to be, well.. doing something that moves their locus of attention away from themselves :)
It's what I'll do because I want to be less self-involved, and if anyone else wants to be less self-involved, I believe that this is an effective course of action and hope that they try it. And yes, I believe that people being less self-involved (among many other necessary improvements) is essential to a better society. That's all.
Totally. That's what the entire thing is about! It is your own problem if you have it, and this is a way that you can address it! And others have it too ( I will absolutely maintain that excessive self-absorption is a problem every human being faces), so seeing you taking action to remedy it in yourself can also encourage them to change their actions.
Social norms are definitely written mostly by extraverts. The only way that's going to ever change is if somehow extraverts decide collectively to be less involved in socializing.. and introverts decide to be -more- involved in socializing. (I'm stating this as a logical necessity, because AFAICS the reason that social norms are written by extraverts is essentially self-selection.).
I recognize this and that's why I'm promoting taking responsibility for saying 'no, I don't want to talk right now' as well as promoting getting involved -- because as far as I can see, there is no alternative that preserves the possibility of people being able to develop relationships beyond merely what is expected in their environment. I'm not saying it's easy to say no, I'm saying it is your responsibility to do so at times, just as it's your responsibility to solve the problem of self-involvement if you have it. You seem to agree with this principle, seeing as you identify as an introvert and are speaking up :)
I've read and discussed temperaments in general, and introverts/extraverts in specific, a lot. I can recommend Dorothy Rowe's books on the subject (eg. 'The successful self'), as they seem to be the only ones that manage to strike precisely at the heart of things.
I am quite familiar with the fact that introverts have difficulty saying no, or to put it another way, being impolite. Also with the fact that they spend a lot of time inside their own head. If you want to see that I can appreciate their good points, I can say that they typically are better at methodical thinking and in general anything that's highly structured, they tend to have a stronger sense of self, and are better at deciding on and following principles. They tend to have fewer relationships but be more invested in the ones they do have. A majority of artists and writers are introverted. Naturally I don't have experience with what it is exactly like to be an introvert, but I do understand that for introverts, essentially the thing that scares them the most is losing control over themselves, so they spend a lot of time honing that control (largely by carefully maintaining and building on their internal meaning-structures). I recognize that being interrupted in this process can be quite jarring. I do maintain that if a person then experiences seething rage or other extreme emotions after being interrupted, that's a problem in their thinking they need to fix.
Fair?
I believe this is more true of America than a number of other cultures.
This seems correct. American culture is definitely, in many ways, more extraverted than Russian culture (the only other culture I have significant experience with), despite (somewhat paradoxically) the greater emphasis on collectivity in Russian culture, and a somewhat lesser attention paid to many classes of social faux pas than American culture. "Familiarity" is a greater social sin in Russian culture than it is in American culture.
As a corollary to this, people raised in the Russian culture generally view American social interaction as "fake".
I remember discussing today how 'constant improvement' -- a classic introvert value -- is an everyday concept in Japan. So, yes. I do think that there's a general self-selection effect regardless of culture, where introverts don't get as much of a say in social norms precisely because they are usually less involved in socializing, but that's just speculative currently.
(By "this", I take it you are referring to "talking to other people" and "introducing yourself to people on planes" and so forth.)
So you think you need to be less self-involved. And doing so requires that you force your interaction on others.
That makes your hapless seat-neighbor on the plane your victim, a victim of your self-improvement strategy.
The point is that I don't think it's a problem and don't see any need to address it. Me missing out on the amazing contribution you might make to my life is not a problem for me. (I speak here in the general case; no personal judgment intended.)
Since that is, by definition, rather unlikely, extraverts have a moral obligation to consider the wishes of introverts to a much greater degree than they currently do, especially as far as making and enforcing social norms goes.
Why on earth are you talking as if this possibility is so obviously and uncontroversially a good thing?
Uh... what.
Also, it occurs to me that there is indeed irony in what you're saying: you think forcing your interaction on others... makes you less self-involved?
Or am I misunderstanding you yet again? If so, then I kindly request that you actually spell out, in detail, just what it is you're advocating, and why.
"forcing" is your framing. To be completely blunt, I reject it. The point is that when two people manage to really genuinely communicate, something is created which transcends either of them, and this draws them both out of their own preconceived frames.
Human social interaction, more specifically talking, is ordinary. Force enters the picture after someone has clearly said "No, I don't want to do this / I'm not interested / etc" and not before.
Otherwise, you're trying to make the person approaching you responsible for your internal state -- A frame I similarly have no compunction about utterly rejecting. You're responsible for your state, they are responsible for theirs. You don't communicate perfectly, so if you're trying to (implicitly, not explicitly) communicate 'not interested' and they are receiving a different message, well, chances are your communication failed. Which is primarily your responsibility.
Overall my impression is that you have this axe to grind about being 'forced' but really no-one except you is talking about force here.
[Edited to be less outraged]
Why? Why should I respond mildly to ordinary occurrences? If I think an action (say, murder) is reprehensible, I will (or should) respond strongly to it no matter how common it is. If something is physically painful to me, I will respond strongly to someone who attempts to do it to me, no matter how ordinary it is. I don't see why this shouldn't also be true of emotional pain or discomfort.
I'm not sure what twist of thinking would allow you to classify murder as ordinary; There's a rather marked difference between common and ordinary. Similarly, assault is not ordinary. One person socially approaching another is ordinary. Emotional discomfort is ordinary. (not sure about emotional pain. But if you get into emotional pain just from being approached, yeah, you've got a problem.)
Though as a point of descriptive curiosity, the level of our emotional responses do actually seem to normalize against what we perceive is common. We need to take measures to counteract that in cases where what is common is not ordinary.
I was speaking of a world in which it was more so.
Um, OK? What is it? I'd respond to the rest of your comment, but I think it's going to hinge on this. If you're not using 'ordinary' as a synonym for 'common', then how are you using it?
"CEV" would be the succinct explanation, but I don't expect anybody to necessarily understand that,so..
If you could create a group of 7 non-extremist people randomly selected from the world population and they'd probably manage to agree that action X, even if not optimal, is a reasonable response to the situation, then X is an ordinary action to take.
(whether it's a good action to take is a separate question. ordinariness is just about not containing any fatal flaws which would be obvious from the outside)
Oh and btw you totally reversed this:
It's mainly about YOU being too self involved. You can't control their self-involvement, really (although if they are willing, you can help with it indirectly), only try to moderate your own through appropriate action.
Ah, yes, I see. My mistake, sorry. I retract that part of my comment.
It is pretty easy to indicate that you don't want to engage -- just don't engage. If someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, just don't answer. I would rather live in a world where people tried to be social & friendly to one another than one in which people censored themselves in an effort not to offend people.
In general, if you suggest a course of action to others that includes the word "just", you may be doing it wrong.
Very much this. Here's an excellent essay on the subject of "lullaby words", of which "just" is one. (The author suggests mentally replacing "just" with "have a lot of trouble to" in such formulations.)
Excellent essay. I strongly recommend it.
In addition to "just", it goes after "soon", "very soon", "should", "all", "only", "anything", and "all I gotta do".
it's not a question of a "world" where this happens, it's a question of a subset of the world where you're forced by circumstance to be very close to a person for very many hours. That's kind of like saying "I don't want to live in a world where you can't stretch your arms out without being considered rude." Yes that world would suck, but we're talking about a frigging airplane.
I get that, but my point stands that while you're forced to be very close to them, you're not forced to talk to them. You could even make up an excuse for not wanting to talk. For example, "Sorry, I don't want to chat right now, I'm going to try to take a nap" or "Sorry, I don't want to chat right now, I'm going to put my headphones on & listen to some music". This isn't Clockwork Orange where he's forcing your eyelids open.
Making up excuses in such a situation is widely seen as rude. If you tell them something like "I'm going to try to take a nap," and do not proceed to take a nap, or at least fake one, you're liable to give offense.
In a situation like this, I would very likely be taking the time to think, and telling someone that you want to think instead of talk to them is widely viewed as rude because it privileges your thoughts over their company.
Someone introducing themselves to you produces "seething, ulcerating rage"? Have you ever considered counseling or therapy?
In comment threads to feminist blog posts in reaction to a particular xkcd comic, I've seen good reasons why certain people might be very pissed off when other people try to talk to them somewhere they cannot get away from, though they mostly apply to women being talked to by men.
I would always find people in aeroplanes less threatening than in trains. I wouldn't imagine the person in the next seat mugging me, for example, whereas I would imagine it on a train.
What do other people think of strangers on a plane versus on a train?
Hadn't noticed that before but now you mention it, I think I have a weaker version of the same intuition.
I expect part of it's based on status of course, but part of it could be that it would be much harder for a mugger to escape on a plane. No crowd of people standing up to blend into, and no easy exits.
Also on some trains you have seats facing each other, so people get used to deliberately avoiding each others gaze (edit: I don't think I'm saying that quite right. They're looking away), which I think makes it feel both awkward and unsafe.
For comparison, here's what I come up with when I introspect about my intuition:
The planes I'm on usually have higher people density than the trains I ride.
People seem more likely to step in if a fight breaks out on a plane than on a train. (Although I wonder why I believe that, since I've never witnessed a fight on a plane. Maybe I'm influenced by point 1. I guess fliers are also quite proactive nowadays about piling on people who get violent on planes.)
Passengers on planes are screened for weapons before they board, and when they're on-board there's less room for them to take a swing at me than on a train.
Someone who confronts me on a plane is less likely/able to follow me home, or to somewhere isolated, than someone who confronts me on a train.
I don't see a difference.
I could understand if it was persistent unwanted communication, but the dude is just trying to break the ice for Odin's sake. Just ignore him or tell him you'd rather not chit chat. How difficult is that?
Surprisingly difficult if you've been trained to be "nice".
Sucks to be that person. Solution! Don't be that person!
Or, more precisely, if you are that person then do the personality development needed to remove the undesirable aspects of that social conditioning.
(You can not control others behaviour in the past. Unless they are extraordinarily good predictors, in which case by all means wreak acausal havoc upon them to prevent their to-be-counterfactual toxic training.)
Yes, that is precisely the meaning I intended.
I'm amazed.
I've been furious at the way you apparently discounted the work it takes to get over niceness conditioning, and the only reason I haven't been on your case about it is that I was distracted by wanting to be nasty-- but I lack the practice at flaming people.
I've heard stories of men who react very, very badly when women try this.
I can attest from personal experience that it's not only women to whom people will sometimes react very negatively. This is one of the factors which has conditioned me into being less comfortable attempting to politely disengage than continuing a conversation I don't want.
With three lines and a half's worth (on my screen) of blathering before you have even said “Hi” to him.
On the bright side, that particular kind of blathering signals someone who's probably self-aware and open to a similarly rambling, self-referential reply. So I'd feel OK parrying pragmatist's opener with something that's also explicit & meta-conversational, e.g.: "Ah, we're doing the having-a-conversation-about-having-a-conversation thing, and now I feel like I have to match your openness about your awkwardness, so I'd better do that: I find it awkward to try to manufacture conversation with somebody in a cramped, uncomfortable, noisy environment for hours. Fortunately, I mostly just want to sleep on this flight, and I brought a book in case I can't, so you don't have to worry about me nervously stealing quick glances at you."
While stereotypes about a set don't apply to all members of that set (of course), they are more often than not more applicable than they are for the general population.
As such, it's interesting that your last name is a common one in Norway.
As it goes, what's the difference between a Norwegian introvert and a Norwegian extrovert?
When a Norwegian introvert talks to you, he stares at his shoes.
When a Norwegian extrovert talks to you, he stares at your shoes.
There are e.g. probably very few Americans who would feel "seething, ulcerating rage" at merely the offer of conversation during a flight (as long as they can reject it, and that rejection is accepted).
Someone prone to seething, ulcerating rage in response to an introduction tends to be unsafe to be around. Similarly, this expression of not-reasonably-provoked vitriol is unpleasant to be around. Please either fix your emotional issue or, at the very least, simply refrain from verbally abusing others on this particular part of the internet.
I may have exaggerated a little for effect. Still, I do find it annoying when people, completely out of the blue, intrude on my private thoughts, entirely without provocation or any reason other than, apparently, enjoying the sound of their own voices.
It's worse than that. Some such people apparently think that they are doing a good thing for you by intruding in this manner; that you will appreciate it.
The road to the introvert's hell is paved with the extravert's good intentions.
(Note for the literal-minded: "hell" is also an exaggeration for effect.)
I am an introvert and I enjoy talking to people on the plane. If they're boring, I put my headphones on and read my book. (If the other person has a book, notice how they interact with it. Wait about thirty seconds- if they're still holding their place with their finger / clearly not disengaging with it, put the conversational ball in their court, and see if they keep talking to you or go back to reading.)
I also recommend introducing yourself as soon as you sit down. They're unlikely to be deep in thought, and it can be awkward to do without a clear opening if you didn't do it immediately. I wasted about half an hour of a flight with a cute guy because I didn't do it on sitting down, and then didn't want to interrupt Skymall. (Thankfully, him finishing reading it was an opening, and then we talked for the remainder of the flight.)