Look, all you need to do is have a discussion that is about the most efficient means of transporting dinosaurs by train. Then you’re talking about both trains and dinosaurs.
On the one hand, I appreciate you articulating these models. On the other, I’m annoyed by the presupposition of conflict over consilience. I don’t know that it would be helpful to whatever point you’re trying to make, but the lack of any mention of synthesis-oriented behavioral models/approaches is easy to misconstrue as a failure of imagination. The zero-sum fallacy gives me a headache.
The very next paragraph after the dinosaur-train thing says:
Of course, in polite society, we would typically both be “50%-leading”, or at least “close-to-50% leading”, and thus we would deftly and implicitly negotiate a compromise. Maybe the conversation topic would bounce back and forth between trains and dinosaurs, or we would find something else entirely to talk about, or we would stop talking and go watch TV, or we would find an excuse to cordially end our interaction, etc.
I think it’s really obvious that friends seek compromises and win-win-solutions where possible, and I think it’s also really obvious that not all participants in an interaction are going to wind up in the best of all possible worlds by their own lights. I think you’re unhappy that I’m spending the whole post talking about the latter, and basically don’t talk about finding win-wins apart from that one little paragraph, because you feel that this choice of emphasis conveys a vibe of “people are just out to get each other and fight for their own interest all the time” instead of a vibe of “kumbaya let’s all be friends”. If so, that’s not deliberate. I don’t feel that vibe and was not trying to convey it. I have friends and family just like you. Instead, I’m focusing on the latter because I think I have interesting things to say about it.
I think there’s also something else going on with your comment though…
As I mention in the third paragraph, there’s a kind of cultural taboo where we’re all supposed to keep up the pretense that mildly conflicting preferences between good friends simply don’t exist. Objectively speaking, I mean, what are the chances that my object-level preferences are exactly the same as yours down to the twelfth decimal place? Zero, right? But if we’re chatting, and you would very very slightly rather continue talking about sports, while I would very very slightly rather change the subject to the funny story that I heard at work, then we will mutually engage in a conspiracy of silence about this slight divergence, because mentioning the divergence out loud (and to some extent, even bringing it to conscious awareness in the privacy of your own head!) is not treated as pointing out an obvious innocuous truth, but rather a rude and pushy declaration that our perfectly normal slight divergence in immediate conversational interests is actually a big deal that poses a serious threat to our ability to get along and has to be somehow dealt with. It’s not! It’s perfectly fine and normal!
The post itself attempts to explain why this taboo / pretense / conspiracy-of-silence exists. And it would be kinda ironic if the post itself is getting misunderstood thanks to the very same conversational conventions that it is attempting to explain. :)
It’s also kind of a negative place to put your attention. People probably prefer not to think about it.
At best, it’s a boring chore, at worse it’s a negative cognitive hazard. Best to minimize time spent on things that will make you feel angry, mistreated, unfair, etc. Especially if you might get trapped in those states, making everything turn out worse, and making day to day interactions a struggle rift with negative associations.
Look, all you need to do is have a discussion that is about the most efficient means of transporting dinosaurs by train. Then you’re talking about both trains and dinosaurs.
On the one hand, I appreciate you articulating these models. On the other, I’m annoyed by the presupposition of conflict over consilience. I don’t know that it would be helpful to whatever point you’re trying to make, but the lack of any mention of synthesis-oriented behavioral models/approaches is easy to misconstrue as a failure of imagination. The zero-sum fallacy gives me a headache.
The very next paragraph after the dinosaur-train thing says:
I think it’s really obvious that friends seek compromises and win-win-solutions where possible, and I think it’s also really obvious that not all participants in an interaction are going to wind up in the best of all possible worlds by their own lights. I think you’re unhappy that I’m spending the whole post talking about the latter, and basically don’t talk about finding win-wins apart from that one little paragraph, because you feel that this choice of emphasis conveys a vibe of “people are just out to get each other and fight for their own interest all the time” instead of a vibe of “kumbaya let’s all be friends”. If so, that’s not deliberate. I don’t feel that vibe and was not trying to convey it. I have friends and family just like you. Instead, I’m focusing on the latter because I think I have interesting things to say about it.
I think there’s also something else going on with your comment though…
As I mention in the third paragraph, there’s a kind of cultural taboo where we’re all supposed to keep up the pretense that mildly conflicting preferences between good friends simply don’t exist. Objectively speaking, I mean, what are the chances that my object-level preferences are exactly the same as yours down to the twelfth decimal place? Zero, right? But if we’re chatting, and you would very very slightly rather continue talking about sports, while I would very very slightly rather change the subject to the funny story that I heard at work, then we will mutually engage in a conspiracy of silence about this slight divergence, because mentioning the divergence out loud (and to some extent, even bringing it to conscious awareness in the privacy of your own head!) is not treated as pointing out an obvious innocuous truth, but rather a rude and pushy declaration that our perfectly normal slight divergence in immediate conversational interests is actually a big deal that poses a serious threat to our ability to get along and has to be somehow dealt with. It’s not! It’s perfectly fine and normal!
The post itself attempts to explain why this taboo / pretense / conspiracy-of-silence exists. And it would be kinda ironic if the post itself is getting misunderstood thanks to the very same conversational conventions that it is attempting to explain. :)
It’s also kind of a negative place to put your attention. People probably prefer not to think about it.
At best, it’s a boring chore, at worse it’s a negative cognitive hazard. Best to minimize time spent on things that will make you feel angry, mistreated, unfair, etc. Especially if you might get trapped in those states, making everything turn out worse, and making day to day interactions a struggle rift with negative associations.
In short, it’s vibe.