As [...] I wonder what it means that I don’t [...].
Generally, when someone says that majority of A do X, but you are A and don’t do X, here are some possible explanations:
the statistics is simply wrong;
the statistics is correct about the majority, but you as an individual are an exception, and possibly so are some of your friends (this similarity could have contributed to you being friends);
the statistics is correct about the majority, but within it a minority is an exception, and you belong to this minority, and possibly so do some of your friends;
you are wrong, you are actually doing X, but you rationalize that it’s something else.
Also from the outside, if someone else is saying this, don’t forget:
publication bias—people who don’t fit the statistics are more like to write about it then those who fit are likely to write “me too” (in communities that value independence).
Specifically for this topic, think also about the difference between maximizers and satisficers. If you read that “females value X”, you may automatically translate it as “females are X-maximizers”, and then observe that you are not. But even then you could still be an X-satisficer; you could have a treshold of “status + class + spending”, where people below this treshold just don’t catch your attention, and from the pool above this treshold you select using different criteria. Thus it may seem that “status + class + spending” are not part of your criteria, but they simply make your first filter, and then you consciously focus on your personal second filter.
(Simple example: You are consciously selecting for funny guys, not rich ones. However, you would never give a homeless guy an opportunity to show you how funny he is. Therefore you are effectively selecting for funny and non-homeless guys; you just don’t think about the second part too much. For less obvious example, replace “homeless” with “not having (signals of) university education” or “not living in an expensive city”.)
Thanks for seeing that there are multiple options for interpretation. I hate it when people interpret my behavior into a false dichotomy of options, which happens to me frequently, so I am finding this refreshing.
I have a functionality threshold, but I see that as different from a class threshold. For instance, I had a boyfriend that had recently graduated from school. He was unemployed at that point, of course. It took him a very long time to get a job due to the recession. That didn’t deter me from liking him. Why not? I had no reason to think he was dysfunctional, I figured he would get a job eventually.
On the other hand, if I meet someone who reeks of alcohol and obviously hasn’t showered in a week, I’m going to be assuming they’re dysfunctional—that even if their situation could be temporary, they’re probably exacerbating it.
That’s not about class. That’s about wanting only functional, healthy relationships in my life. It’s not a healthy relationship if you have to pay for a person’s food and shelter because they’re not able to get those things for themselves.
If I meet someone who seems functional (has showered, does not reek of alcohol, etc.) and they strike up intelligent conversation (funny is nice but intelligent conversation is more my thing) but happen to be homeless, I will judge them based on how functional they are. I would not invest much until they get back on their feet, because I know better than to think that seeming functional and actually being functional are the same thing, but I wouldn’t refuse to talk to them if they seemed interesting and functional.
Why invest in a guy who just graduated but not the homeless guy? Well let’s ask this: what did the recent graduate do wrong? Nothing. Nothing is out of the ordinary if a recent grad is looking for work. That’s normal. That’s not a red flag. The homeless person, though may have done something to cause their situation. That is an abnormal situation, a red flag. I won’t be sure they are capable of supporting themselves until I see it. On the other hand, the recent grad has just spent several years doing hard work—they’ve demonstrated that they’re functional enough to be capable of supporting themselves.
That’s what’s important for me—whether people are able to support themselves, maintain stability, and be functional in general.
Generally, when someone says that majority of A do X, but you are A and don’t do X, here are some possible explanations:
the statistics is simply wrong;
the statistics is correct about the majority, but you as an individual are an exception, and possibly so are some of your friends (this similarity could have contributed to you being friends);
the statistics is correct about the majority, but within it a minority is an exception, and you belong to this minority, and possibly so do some of your friends;
you are wrong, you are actually doing X, but you rationalize that it’s something else.
Also from the outside, if someone else is saying this, don’t forget:
publication bias—people who don’t fit the statistics are more like to write about it then those who fit are likely to write “me too” (in communities that value independence).
Specifically for this topic, think also about the difference between maximizers and satisficers. If you read that “females value X”, you may automatically translate it as “females are X-maximizers”, and then observe that you are not. But even then you could still be an X-satisficer; you could have a treshold of “status + class + spending”, where people below this treshold just don’t catch your attention, and from the pool above this treshold you select using different criteria. Thus it may seem that “status + class + spending” are not part of your criteria, but they simply make your first filter, and then you consciously focus on your personal second filter.
(Simple example: You are consciously selecting for funny guys, not rich ones. However, you would never give a homeless guy an opportunity to show you how funny he is. Therefore you are effectively selecting for funny and non-homeless guys; you just don’t think about the second part too much. For less obvious example, replace “homeless” with “not having (signals of) university education” or “not living in an expensive city”.)
What’s the difference between the second and the third bullet?
Thanks for seeing that there are multiple options for interpretation. I hate it when people interpret my behavior into a false dichotomy of options, which happens to me frequently, so I am finding this refreshing.
I have a functionality threshold, but I see that as different from a class threshold. For instance, I had a boyfriend that had recently graduated from school. He was unemployed at that point, of course. It took him a very long time to get a job due to the recession. That didn’t deter me from liking him. Why not? I had no reason to think he was dysfunctional, I figured he would get a job eventually.
On the other hand, if I meet someone who reeks of alcohol and obviously hasn’t showered in a week, I’m going to be assuming they’re dysfunctional—that even if their situation could be temporary, they’re probably exacerbating it.
That’s not about class. That’s about wanting only functional, healthy relationships in my life. It’s not a healthy relationship if you have to pay for a person’s food and shelter because they’re not able to get those things for themselves.
If I meet someone who seems functional (has showered, does not reek of alcohol, etc.) and they strike up intelligent conversation (funny is nice but intelligent conversation is more my thing) but happen to be homeless, I will judge them based on how functional they are. I would not invest much until they get back on their feet, because I know better than to think that seeming functional and actually being functional are the same thing, but I wouldn’t refuse to talk to them if they seemed interesting and functional.
Why invest in a guy who just graduated but not the homeless guy? Well let’s ask this: what did the recent graduate do wrong? Nothing. Nothing is out of the ordinary if a recent grad is looking for work. That’s normal. That’s not a red flag. The homeless person, though may have done something to cause their situation. That is an abnormal situation, a red flag. I won’t be sure they are capable of supporting themselves until I see it. On the other hand, the recent grad has just spent several years doing hard work—they’ve demonstrated that they’re functional enough to be capable of supporting themselves.
That’s what’s important for me—whether people are able to support themselves, maintain stability, and be functional in general.