I believe implicit requests for advice basically shouldn’t exist … there are good reasons to have social norms that drive people away from this sort of behaviour
Why do you believe this? That is, is this an aesthetic preference about the kind of society you want to live in, or do you believe they have negative consequences, or do you adhere to some deontological model with which they are inconsistent, or… ?
I believe there are negative consequences, some of which I’ve already elaborated upon, and some of which I haven’t.
Illustratively, there do exist social norms against patronising other people, asking personal questions, publicly speculating about other people’s personal circumstances, infringing privacy, etc., which are significant risks when offering people unsolicited advice. Since offering people unsolicited advice is itself a risk when inferring requests for advice from ambiguous statements, it seems reasonable (to me) to expect people to be less inclined to draw this inference.
Also, offering advice (or general assistance, or simply establishing a dialogue with someone) isn’t a socially-neutral act, especially in a public setting. A suitable analogy here might be walking into a bar and saying “after a day like today, I’m ready for a drink”. This isn’t an invitation for any nearby kind-hearted stranger to buy you a drink without first asking if you wanted them to. The act of buying a drink for someone has all sorts of social/hospitality/reciprocity connotations.
After making a right royal mess of this particular thread, I’m keen to disentangle myself from it, so while I’m happy to continue the exchange, I’d appreciate it if it didn’t continue any longer than was useful to you.
while I’m happy to continue the exchange, I’d appreciate it if it didn’t continue any longer than was useful to you.
Um… well, OK.
I have to admit, I don’t quite understand, either from this post or this thread, what you think the negative consequences are which these social norms protect against… the consequences you imply all seem like consequences of violating a social norm, not consequences of the social norm not existing.
Perhaps I’m being dense.
Regardless, I’m only idly interested, so if you’d rather disentangle I’m happy to drop it.
Well, unwarranted advice can result in making someone feel patronised, or like their privacy or personal boundaries are being violated, or like their personal circumstances are subject to public speculation, and these are all unpleasant and negative experiences, and you should try and avoid subjecting people to them.
It can also, out of nowhere, create a whole raft of dubious questioning or accidental insinuation that the recipient of the advice may feel obliged, or even compelled, to put straight. It has a general capacity to generate discussion that is a lot more effort for the advisee to engage with than the advisor. It’s very easy to give people advice, but as I have found, it’s surprisingly hard to say “no, stop, I don’t want this advice!” (I have said it very vehemently in this thread, with the consequence of looking like an objectionable arse, but I’m not sure that saying it less vehemently would have actually stopped people from offering it.) These are also unpleasant and negative experiences, and you should try and avoid subjecting people to them as well.
like their privacy or personal boundaries are being violated, or like their personal circumstances are subject to public speculation, and these are all unpleasant and negative experiences
Advice, unwanted or not, usually follows a description of the situation or relevant circumstances.
Someone who published—posted online—an account of his situation or “personal circumstances” cannot complain later that his privacy was violated or that these personal circumstances became “subject to public speculation”.
To put it bluntly, posting things on the ’net makes them not private any more.
Part of my point in this thread is that advice often comes even in the absence of a description of relevant circumstances. Hence they become subject to public speculation.
Your complaint included “their privacy or personal boundaries are being violated”. And when you complained about speculation, you complained about “their personal circumstances are subject to public speculation”.
Presumably these personal circumstances were voluntarily published online, were they not?
If you do not post your personal circumstances online there is nothing to speculate about.
You seem to want to have a power of veto on people talking about you. That… is not going to happen.
If I talk, in the abstract, about how I imagine that it’s hard to organise bestiality orgies, and someone misinterprets that as a request for advice about organising bestiality orgies, that’s some pretty flammable speculation about my personal circumstances. I then have the option of either denying that I have interest in bestiality orgies, or ignoring them and leaving the speculation open.
Does that make sense? Please let it make sense. I want to leave this thread.
If I talk, in the abstract, about how I imagine that it’s hard to organise bestiality orgies, and someone misinterprets that as a request for advice about organising bestiality orgies, that’s some pretty flammable speculation about my personal circumstances.
No, it is not unless you’re actually organizing bestiality orgies.
If you actually do not, then it’s neither an invasion of privacy nor a discussion of your personal circumstances because your personal circumstance don’t happen to involve bestiality orgies.
It might be a simple misunderstanding or it might be a malicious attack, but it has nothing to do with your private life (again, unless it has in which case you probably shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place).
And leaving this thread is a simple as stepping away from the keyboard.
For my own part, if someone goes around saying “Dave likes to polish goats in his garage”, it seems entirely reasonable for me to describe that as talking about my private life, regardless of whether or not I polish goats, whether or not I like polishing goats, or whether or not I have a garage.
To claim that they aren’t actually talking about my private life at all is in some technical sense true, I suppose, but the relevance of that technical sense to anything I might actually be expected to care about is so vanishingly small that I have trouble taking the claim seriously.
You’re conflating privacy and public speculation again. I didn’t do that.
If I say “I think Lumifer likes to ride polar bears in his free time”, then I am speculating about your personal circumstances. I just am. That’s what I’m doing. It’s an incontrovertible linguistic fact. I am putting forth the speculation that you like to ride polar bears in your free time, which is a circumstance that pertains to you. I am speculating about your personal circumstances. Whether the statement is true or not is irrelevant. I’m still doing it.
And I am actually going to go away now. Reply however you like, or not.
If I say “I think Lumifer likes to ride polar bears in his free time”, then I am speculating about your personal circumstances.
Not quite. The words which are missing here are “imaginary” and “real”.
I have real personal circumstances. If someone were to find out what they really are and start discussing them, I would be justified in claiming invasion of privacy and speculation about my personal circumstances.
However in this example, me riding polar bears is not real personal circumstances. What’s happening is that you *associate* me with some imaginary circumstances. Because they are imaginary they do not affect my actual privacy or my real personal circumstances. They are not MY personal circumstances.
In legal terms, publicly claiming that Lumifer likes to ride polar bears and participate in unmentionable activities with them might be defamation but it is NOT invasion of privacy.
To repeat, you want to prevent or control people talking about you and that doesn’t sound to me like a reasonable request.
Why do you believe this? That is, is this an aesthetic preference about the kind of society you want to live in, or do you believe they have negative consequences, or do you adhere to some deontological model with which they are inconsistent, or… ?
I believe there are negative consequences, some of which I’ve already elaborated upon, and some of which I haven’t.
Illustratively, there do exist social norms against patronising other people, asking personal questions, publicly speculating about other people’s personal circumstances, infringing privacy, etc., which are significant risks when offering people unsolicited advice. Since offering people unsolicited advice is itself a risk when inferring requests for advice from ambiguous statements, it seems reasonable (to me) to expect people to be less inclined to draw this inference.
Also, offering advice (or general assistance, or simply establishing a dialogue with someone) isn’t a socially-neutral act, especially in a public setting. A suitable analogy here might be walking into a bar and saying “after a day like today, I’m ready for a drink”. This isn’t an invitation for any nearby kind-hearted stranger to buy you a drink without first asking if you wanted them to. The act of buying a drink for someone has all sorts of social/hospitality/reciprocity connotations.
After making a right royal mess of this particular thread, I’m keen to disentangle myself from it, so while I’m happy to continue the exchange, I’d appreciate it if it didn’t continue any longer than was useful to you.
Um… well, OK.
I have to admit, I don’t quite understand, either from this post or this thread, what you think the negative consequences are which these social norms protect against… the consequences you imply all seem like consequences of violating a social norm, not consequences of the social norm not existing.
Perhaps I’m being dense.
Regardless, I’m only idly interested, so if you’d rather disentangle I’m happy to drop it.
Well, unwarranted advice can result in making someone feel patronised, or like their privacy or personal boundaries are being violated, or like their personal circumstances are subject to public speculation, and these are all unpleasant and negative experiences, and you should try and avoid subjecting people to them.
It can also, out of nowhere, create a whole raft of dubious questioning or accidental insinuation that the recipient of the advice may feel obliged, or even compelled, to put straight. It has a general capacity to generate discussion that is a lot more effort for the advisee to engage with than the advisor. It’s very easy to give people advice, but as I have found, it’s surprisingly hard to say “no, stop, I don’t want this advice!” (I have said it very vehemently in this thread, with the consequence of looking like an objectionable arse, but I’m not sure that saying it less vehemently would have actually stopped people from offering it.) These are also unpleasant and negative experiences, and you should try and avoid subjecting people to them as well.
Mm. OK, I think I understand. Thanks for clarifying.
Advice, unwanted or not, usually follows a description of the situation or relevant circumstances.
Someone who published—posted online—an account of his situation or “personal circumstances” cannot complain later that his privacy was violated or that these personal circumstances became “subject to public speculation”.
To put it bluntly, posting things on the ’net makes them not private any more.
Part of my point in this thread is that advice often comes even in the absence of a description of relevant circumstances. Hence they become subject to public speculation.
If you haven’t disclosed private information then I don’t see how advice or speculation invades your privacy.
You may consider it to be something like baseless rumors, but baseless rumors are not invasion of your privacy either.
You’re conflating invasion of privacy and public speculation of circumstances. I never equated the two.
Your complaint included “their privacy or personal boundaries are being violated”. And when you complained about speculation, you complained about “their personal circumstances are subject to public speculation”.
Presumably these personal circumstances were voluntarily published online, were they not?
If you do not post your personal circumstances online there is nothing to speculate about.
You seem to want to have a power of veto on people talking about you. That… is not going to happen.
Also, FYI, it’s not me who’s downvoting you.
If I talk, in the abstract, about how I imagine that it’s hard to organise bestiality orgies, and someone misinterprets that as a request for advice about organising bestiality orgies, that’s some pretty flammable speculation about my personal circumstances. I then have the option of either denying that I have interest in bestiality orgies, or ignoring them and leaving the speculation open.
Does that make sense? Please let it make sense. I want to leave this thread.
No, it is not unless you’re actually organizing bestiality orgies.
If you actually do not, then it’s neither an invasion of privacy nor a discussion of your personal circumstances because your personal circumstance don’t happen to involve bestiality orgies.
It might be a simple misunderstanding or it might be a malicious attack, but it has nothing to do with your private life (again, unless it has in which case you probably shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place).
And leaving this thread is a simple as stepping away from the keyboard.
For my own part, if someone goes around saying “Dave likes to polish goats in his garage”, it seems entirely reasonable for me to describe that as talking about my private life, regardless of whether or not I polish goats, whether or not I like polishing goats, or whether or not I have a garage.
To claim that they aren’t actually talking about my private life at all is in some technical sense true, I suppose, but the relevance of that technical sense to anything I might actually be expected to care about is so vanishingly small that I have trouble taking the claim seriously.
You’re conflating privacy and public speculation again. I didn’t do that.
If I say “I think Lumifer likes to ride polar bears in his free time”, then I am speculating about your personal circumstances. I just am. That’s what I’m doing. It’s an incontrovertible linguistic fact. I am putting forth the speculation that you like to ride polar bears in your free time, which is a circumstance that pertains to you. I am speculating about your personal circumstances. Whether the statement is true or not is irrelevant. I’m still doing it.
And I am actually going to go away now. Reply however you like, or not.
Not quite. The words which are missing here are “imaginary” and “real”.
I have real personal circumstances. If someone were to find out what they really are and start discussing them, I would be justified in claiming invasion of privacy and speculation about my personal circumstances.
However in this example, me riding polar bears is not real personal circumstances. What’s happening is that you *associate* me with some imaginary circumstances. Because they are imaginary they do not affect my actual privacy or my real personal circumstances. They are not MY personal circumstances.
In legal terms, publicly claiming that Lumifer likes to ride polar bears and participate in unmentionable activities with them might be defamation but it is NOT invasion of privacy.
To repeat, you want to prevent or control people talking about you and that doesn’t sound to me like a reasonable request.
You are just using different definitions of privacy.
Recommended reading: Daniel Solove, “A Taxonomy of Privacy”.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=667622