= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
daenerys 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)
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.)
I... don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm afraid. I'm having trouble reading your comment (the parts about "can" and "can't" and such) as a response to what I said rather than a non sequitur. Would you mind rephrasing, or...?
Huh? I was making an "ought" statement. Supporting one's own position and attacking the opposing position are the same thing when only one position could be the right one.
Those analogies don't make any sense. Consider: in the "punch in face" case, we have:
Alice: Wants to punch Bob in the face.
Bob: Doesn't want to be punched in the face.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied and Bob does not; Alice's preferences (to punch Bob) are forced upon Bob, causing Bob to experience preference non-satisfaction. If we support Bob, then vice versa; Bob's preferences (to not be punched by Alice) are forced upon Alice, causing Alice to experience preference non-satisfaction. (Generally, we support Bob in such a case.)
The "exercise" or "vote" case bears no resemblance to this. In both cases, we simply have:
Alice: Doesn't want to vote.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied. There is no Bob here. There is also no dilemma of any kind. Obviously we should support Alice, because there is no reason not to. (Unless we hate Alice and want her to experience preference non-satisfaction, for some reason.)
The "interact with strangers" case is isomorphic to the "punch in face" case, like so:
Alice: Wants to interact with Bob (i.e. wants to introduce herself to Bob who is her seat-neighbor on a plane).
Bob: Doesn't want to be interacted with.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied and Bob does not; Alice's preferences (to interact with Bob) are forced upon Bob, causing Bob to experience preference non-satisfaction. If we support Bob, then vice versa; Bob's preferences (to not be interacted with) are forced upon Alice, causing Alice to experience preference non-satisfaction.
Supporting Alice in the "interact with strangers" case is a little like saying, in the "punch in face" case: "Yeah, well, if Bob doesn't want to be punched, then he ought to just block when I throw a right hook at his face. I'll get the hint, I promise!"
False. Even if all things considered you prefer that Alice not be compelled to vote there are reasons to do so. Voting is a commons problem. Compulsory voting (or, "compulsory attendence of the voting booth at which point you can submit a valid vote or not as you please") can be considered analogous to taxation, and happens to be paid in time (approximately non-fungibly). If a country happens to get adequate voting outcomes purely from volunteers then that may be a desirable policy all things considered. However, compelling people to vote does not imply sadism. Merely a different solution to said commons problem.
tl;dr: "CAN" is about a person's ability or capability. This helps them to take responsibility "CAN'T" is about what you(or society) can prevent them from doing. This helps them evade responsibility.
BTW, there is a Bob. Bob is society in the voting case and .. well, if you think about it, also society in the exercise case (but 'the part of you that values wellbeing over comfort' would also qualify there).
I really don't understand what you're saying here. :(
"Society" can't have rights, nor can "society" have preferences, or the satisfactions or non-satisfactions thereof. There is no good but the good of individuals; there is no harm but the harm to individuals.
The idea that "society" has rights, or that "society" can be benefited or harmed, independently from the good or harm to any individuals, is one of the most destructive ideas in human history.
As for 'the part of you that values wellbeing over comfort' ... rights do not accrue to internal aspects of self. "Rights" are about interpersonal morality. (But actually I would prefer we not go off on this particular tangent here, if that's ok; it's rather off-topic.)
Sure, savageorange could have found a telephone book and tried listing everyone individually. But saying 'society' seems more efficient. It refers tot he case where many unnamed but clearly existing individuals who need not or can not be named would be harmed.
Yes, that's the implied assumption, but it's usually a way to mask the fact that were we to try and find any actual, specific individuals who are concretely benefited or harmed by whatever-it-is, we would have quite the hard time doing so.
Note that certain polities have compulsory voting and others don't.
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...
Perhaps paper-machine said 'on accident' by purpose...
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.
Haha, that makes sense.
... Only on LessWrong :)
I think science fiction fans (or at least the ones I know) could also have managed the correction.
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).