Comment author: JonahSinick 20 May 2015 11:56:14PM 8 points [-]

It does apply to praise: I take statements of the type "you're so wonderful" as having much more to do with how the person feels than it has to do with me.

Comment author: Autolykos 21 May 2015 07:56:57AM *  6 points [-]

I suppose you already drew the obvious conclusion, but I still think it's worth spelling out:

The key to people liking you is making sure they feel good when you're around. Causality is secondary.

Comment author: Swimmer963 21 May 2015 02:50:53AM 0 points [-]

Women, in particular, are quite adept at this.

Citation?

Comment author: Autolykos 21 May 2015 07:48:45AM *  2 points [-]

A quick google search found this:

Emma Chapman, Simon Baron-Cohen, Bonnie Auyeung, Rebecca Knickmeyer, Kevin Taylor & Gerald Hackett (2006) Fetal testosterone and empathy: Evidence from the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test, Social Neuroscience, 1:2, 135-148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470910600992239

I can't find a citation for the whole story right now, but as I remember it, it goes something like this: When the first wave of testosterone hits a male fetus, it kills off well over 80% of the brain cells responsible for empathy and reading emotions. Which is not as bad as it sounds, some of them do grow back. And then comes puberty...

Comment author: 27chaos 20 May 2015 02:35:49AM 1 point [-]

(e) I say something that someone doesn't understand. I think "maybe the person needs more context," and follow up by giving more context. The person still doesn't understand, so I think "ok, I guess I have to give even more context" and so continue in the same direction. In fact, the amount of context that I would need to give for my point to be clear would take ~100 hours to convey, so that what I'm doing is actually not at all productive. The person perceives the situation as

Jonah is totally ignoring the fact that I'm not understanding what I'm saying, and keeps going on and on about the same thing, oblivious to my feelings

because he or she has no way of knowing that I'm explicitly trying to address the fact that the person is uncomfortable about not understanding.

Oh. Well. Oops.

But what alternatives are there? Should I just give up? That seems rude too.

Comment author: Autolykos 20 May 2015 03:35:13PM *  3 points [-]

Only say things that can be heard. If you can anticipate that you are too many inferential steps away, you should talk about something else. Which means in this case: Be patient and build their knowledge from the bottom, not from the top.

If you have already started and notice the problem too late, yeah, you're kinda screwed. The honest answer seems pretty rude, and not saying anything is worse. I'd probably try to salvage what I still can by saying something along the lines of "I know this is a complicated and confusing issue, and it takes a while to explain where I'm coming from*. I can point you to these resources if you're really interested in the matter." And not bring it up again unless they start it.

This allows you to drop a conversation that's going nowhere, while they can research it if they want to or ignore it if they don't while still saving face in both cases.

*Or, if it went really bad: "...and I suck at explaining." - taking the blame for the failed communication can defuse the sting of making them feel stupid.

Comment author: Autolykos 20 May 2015 01:27:29PM *  2 points [-]

There is also something else going on here, which I realized after learning about personality types, especially Jung's theories and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. One dimension separates along the primary mode of seeing the world (Sensing vs iNtuitive), with the former ones collecting individual facts and strictly following isolated rules, and the latter ones always looking for the generalized principle behind the facts and questioning the origin and sense of rules.

These two types have a lot of trouble understanding each others' way of thinking and frequently get into each others' hairs; e.g. S types tend to interpret N types questioning rules out of curiosity as a personal attack on their way of life (especially so if accurate), while N types tend to dismiss criticism by S types as small-minded bean counting and accuse them of missing the forest for the trees.

Now, there are roughly four to six times as many S types as N types around, and on top of that most weak cases of N types tend to hide it so as not to seem too weird. On the other hand, abstract topics (natural sciences, Less Wrong) tend to attract N types. From this baseline (and your description) I infer that you are also one of the aliens. You can't fundamentally alter your way of thinking to fit in (would you even want to?) - the best you can hope for is to find and befriend the other hidden aliens while trying to get along with the rest.

There's also a nice TED talk on the matter. Just google "Weirdos, Misfits and You". And you might like Eugene Ionesco's "Rhinoceros". It's usually taken as a metaphor for something else, but I still find that it hits the mark pretty well. It's also short and fun to read, so there's no good excuse not to.

In response to Two Cult Koans
Comment author: George_Weinberg2 21 December 2007 07:09:20PM 6 points [-]

"Since you are so concerned about the interactions of clothing with probability theory," Ougi said, "it should not surprise you that you must wear a special hat to understand."

But isn't this almost the exact opposite of what the student was saying? Questioning the robes indicates to me that the student felt there was not any interaction between learning probability theory and clothing, and that therefore it served some other purpose, presumably differentiating between an in group and an out group.

Or am I just nuts for trying to argue with you about the internal thoughts of your own fictional characters?

Comment author: Autolykos 09 April 2015 01:57:59PM 1 point [-]

Then he asked the wrong question. Straight up asking "Ougi, why did you decide on a formal dress code when this apparently has no meaning for your teachings?" is a different question from "Does wearing robes make us a cult?", and shows a different understanding of what the robes mean. The answer would still be deliberately confusing and enigmatic, but that's kinda the whole point of a koan.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 May 2011 06:49:16PM 1 point [-]

Sorry no source, but from what I've read, people with engineering degrees are recruited because they're recruitable as suicide bombers, they're not wanted for bombmakers or because they'd be good at positioning themselves for maximum damage.

Comment author: Autolykos 04 July 2013 09:29:27PM 1 point [-]

Danger, wild speculation ahead: I'd assume it has something to do with the saying "Engineers can't lie." I can imagine constantly experiencing that doing things in violation with reality leads to failure, while at the same time hearing politicians lie pretty much every time they open their mouth and having them get elected again and again (or not failing in another way), to make quite a few of them seriously fed up with the current government in particular and humanity in general. Some less stable personalities might just want to watch the world burn at that point. Which should make them recruitable as terrorists, if you use the right sales pitch.

View more: Prev