= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SaidAchmiz 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)
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.
People affect each other. I'm dubious about the moral frames which say that people ought to be able to do something (not be affected in some inconvenient way) when it's so clear that few if any people can do that.
I can see what you mean, but I'm afraid that the furthest I can go in agreement is to say that few if any people do do that (or have any idea how)*. We're certainty poverty-stricken WRT tools for taking responsibility for our own thoughts and emotions. I would argue though that that does not change what responsibilities we do have.
* BTW in a strict sense I don't think it's actually that important how you feel in response to an event, as long as you respond appropriately, just that it's useful to treat "experiencing disproportionate emotions" as a flag that one of your habits of thinking is disjuncted from reality.
This would only be true if there did not exist social norms which discourage such responses. But there are, so what you say is not true. In fact, you introducing yourself to me on a plan in the manner described near the top of this thread is inherently forceful, even if you do not recognize it as such.
People are "responsible for" my mental state in the same sense they are "responsible for" my physical state: if someone punches me and then, when I protest, says "Yeah, well, I'm not responsible for your state!", that's rather disingenuous, don't you think?
That's certainly a very convenient position to take if what you want is to be able to force interaction on others and not incur social disapproval. "What's that? He didn't want me to accost him and start chatting him up? Well I guess he should have communicated that better, now shouldn't he?"
Look, it's true that we often communicate badly; illusion of transparency and all that. But to take this as general license for plowing ahead and leaving behind any attempt to consider your fellow human beings' preferences until such time as they expend significant emotional energy to make them clear to you — that is simply inconsiderate, to say the least. (And this is coming from someone on the autism spectrum, who, I assure you, understands very well the difficulty of divining the mental states of other humans!)
Not talking about force does not magically cause there to not be any force.
Finally, I once again note...
... that you talk about social interaction as if it's this wonderful and amazing thing that, obviously, everyone should want, because it's obviously so wonderful.
Not everyone feels that way.
What it is is an absurd equivocation. Punching someone in the face is not the same as introducing yourself to them.
Of course it's not the same. But the framing of "Is it ok to interact with a person in this way I find enjoyable if they might not." is the part that's important. I am currently seeing a person who is masochistic. When she was a child, she literally had NO IDEA that punching people was not ok because they did not enjoy it the way she would. Said is overemphasizing but the point that a social interaction can be negative and stressful for someone EVEN if you think it's always an awesome thing is an important thing to recognize. I think on net most introductions are probably +value but the original over the top example is a perfect pointer to what NOT to do if you want to introduce yourself but also care about not ruining an Introvert's day.
I endorse this formulation. Well explained.