I agree that there are awkward and non-awkward meta conversations. However, perhaps on average, meta-conversations can tend to be awkward because they:
Implicitly criticize a person or group’s interaction style, which may come off as a personal insult (i.e. the way you behave naturally leads to problems, thus it is incorrect/less than ideal)
Illuminate an unspoken social hierarchy or stable conflict, which persists stably due to not being outright stated or described clearly (i.e. a person accepts being interrupted because he tacitly considers himself lower on the social hierarchy, but can deal with that fact and glide with it smoothly as long as it is unsaid)
Make one too aware of their interaction style. Even if it is not a criticism, it can lead to a “glitch in the Matrix” moment for a person, even momentarily, they think about that thing they may be doing even accidentally, and their thinking/fluidity of interaction slows as a result.
I think in a larger sense, there is an implicit hierarchy in many social groups that rewards status based on the ability to mesh automatically, and just get a lot of unspoken norms. It becomes almost a game of chicken or intimidation: whoever can deal longer assenting to status differentials or awkward moments while keeping quiet “wins” this game, and thus is more worthy of belonging. To some, it seems, the need to clarify or criticize any element of the unspoken social rules may signal a person’s inability to “vibe” with however the social order has ended up, signaling that they don’t belong among the people who “get it”
Also. the hypothesis that meta-comments could improve the debate assumes that everyone else would agree with them. But if one person makes a meta-comment, and some other person disagrees with the meta-comment, they will soon have a meta-argument, and everyone else will be like “what happened to the original topic we wanted to discuss in the first place?”
Also, object-level disagreements can be “solved” by changing a topic. More difficult to do with a meta-level disagreement; the closest analogy would be to stop communicating (and find someone else to talk to).
But if one person makes a meta-comment, and some other person disagrees with the meta-comment, they will soon have a meta-argument, and everyone else will be like “what happened to the original topic we wanted to discuss in the first place?”
I think that’s definitely a failure mode that is likely to happen. However, I think that it’s also a failure mode that is avoidable.
The status claim thing seems true. In fact most status hierarchies, those with higher status have more control over a broader, more generalized realm: the lower levels debate, and the higher levels control the frame of the debate, so by meta-commenting you are implicitly claiming the higher spot.
Interesting points! I generally agree. In particular, that a) there’s a natural tendency for people to mesh with some groups more than others based on these unspoken norms, and people gravitate towards groups they mesh with, which mitigates the problem. But the problem still doesn’t totally go away. Often times it doesn’t even go away all that much.
b) I lean pretty strongly towards agreeing with the point about it coming across as a personal insult. In particular, that fifth example I gave with the girl at the tea house. If I spoke up in front of the group and called her out for dominating the conversation, yeah, I feel like it’d be awkward. I wish that weren’t the case.
signaling that they don’t belong among the people who “get it”
then signal that just getting it doesn’t give people a right to dominate by making those who just get it slightly confused as you explain what’s needed to make space in the conversation for those who don’t just get it to participate. by doing so, those who just get it reveal their intent towards kindness or rudeness based on how they respond.
edit: huh, this got a strong downvote. interesting.
I agree that there are awkward and non-awkward meta conversations. However, perhaps on average, meta-conversations can tend to be awkward because they:
Implicitly criticize a person or group’s interaction style, which may come off as a personal insult (i.e. the way you behave naturally leads to problems, thus it is incorrect/less than ideal)
Illuminate an unspoken social hierarchy or stable conflict, which persists stably due to not being outright stated or described clearly (i.e. a person accepts being interrupted because he tacitly considers himself lower on the social hierarchy, but can deal with that fact and glide with it smoothly as long as it is unsaid)
Make one too aware of their interaction style. Even if it is not a criticism, it can lead to a “glitch in the Matrix” moment for a person, even momentarily, they think about that thing they may be doing even accidentally, and their thinking/fluidity of interaction slows as a result.
I think in a larger sense, there is an implicit hierarchy in many social groups that rewards status based on the ability to mesh automatically, and just get a lot of unspoken norms. It becomes almost a game of chicken or intimidation: whoever can deal longer assenting to status differentials or awkward moments while keeping quiet “wins” this game, and thus is more worthy of belonging. To some, it seems, the need to clarify or criticize any element of the unspoken social rules may signal a person’s inability to “vibe” with however the social order has ended up, signaling that they don’t belong among the people who “get it”
Making meta-comments feels like a status claim.
Also. the hypothesis that meta-comments could improve the debate assumes that everyone else would agree with them. But if one person makes a meta-comment, and some other person disagrees with the meta-comment, they will soon have a meta-argument, and everyone else will be like “what happened to the original topic we wanted to discuss in the first place?”
Also, object-level disagreements can be “solved” by changing a topic. More difficult to do with a meta-level disagreement; the closest analogy would be to stop communicating (and find someone else to talk to).
Ah yeah that’s a great point. I agree.
I think that’s definitely a failure mode that is likely to happen. However, I think that it’s also a failure mode that is avoidable.
The status claim thing seems true. In fact most status hierarchies, those with higher status have more control over a broader, more generalized realm: the lower levels debate, and the higher levels control the frame of the debate, so by meta-commenting you are implicitly claiming the higher spot.
Interesting points! I generally agree. In particular, that a) there’s a natural tendency for people to mesh with some groups more than others based on these unspoken norms, and people gravitate towards groups they mesh with, which mitigates the problem. But the problem still doesn’t totally go away. Often times it doesn’t even go away all that much.
b) I lean pretty strongly towards agreeing with the point about it coming across as a personal insult. In particular, that fifth example I gave with the girl at the tea house. If I spoke up in front of the group and called her out for dominating the conversation, yeah, I feel like it’d be awkward. I wish that weren’t the case.
then signal that just getting it doesn’t give people a right to dominate by making those who just get it slightly confused as you explain what’s needed to make space in the conversation for those who don’t just get it to participate. by doing so, those who just get it reveal their intent towards kindness or rudeness based on how they respond.
edit: huh, this got a strong downvote. interesting.