Concerning your final questions, in response to what could be done:
If we were in a future with augmented reality (as in, people wear smart glasses or something), and people had accurate self-images of their personal boundaries, then those people could make their boundaries visible in that augmented reality.
So if I wanted to depict large boundaries, I could choose to look visibly spiky, like a sea urchin; whereas if I wanted to indicate small boundaries, I could choose something very fluffy instead.
In other words, if the problem is that we all have the equivalent of invisible auras, and so people can’t tell how those look without probing them in ways that risk rejection or reproach, then one solution is to make those boundaries (and their feedback to interaction) as visible and expressive and reactive as possible. Transform them in a way that allows a Gears-level understanding of them.
Not really a response, just something I thought of while reading this comment:
The obvious solution to people having different and unclear boundaries is to make those boundaries clearer, such as by asking for explicit consent, or by having a No-Prank List mentioned in johnswentworth’s comment. Stating boundaries too clearly may lead to misuse though, but I suppose it does also make bad actors more obvious, because they can no longer hide behind the excuse of ignorance.
Nonetheless, even if we do somehow manage to convey most of our boundaries (e.g. via AR glasses), it would be highly unlikely that we’d be able to communicate all our boundaries all the time. Boundaries are sensitive to context and may change from moment to moment. We may not even realise where our boundaries lie until someone violates it. It would be impractical to find ways to make our boundaries clear enough that accidental boundary violations no longer happen. Worse still, if we managed to clearly communicate the simpler boundaries (where the consequence of violating boundaries are often lesser) but not the more complex boundaries (where consequences tend to be more severe), how would we get to practice negotiating ambiguous boundaries? There won’t be any simple cases to safely experiment and learn from!
Thus, the more practical solution would be to improve people’s abilities to negotiate ambiguous boundaries, such as the skills mentioned in Linda Linsefors’ comment, or learning how to say no. Or say, learning to pay attention to your personal boundaries instead of just social boundaries. (e.g. if someone touches me in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable, I move away instead of staying still just because there’s no social rule saying that it’s wrong) Another useful skill would be finding ways to limit the consequences of having your boundaries violated (or finding ways to meet your needs without violating other people’s boundaries). For example, informing your hosts beforehand that you are allergic to peanuts, or bringing earplugs to noisy places if you’re sensitive to sounds.
I’d thought that how the No-Prank List and “welcomes hugs” stickers worked was by making boundaries clearer so people know what they’re allowed to do and what they cannot do, but now it seems like their value lies more in how they limit the downsides of being wrong. Because you now know who doesn’t want to be pranked, or who doesn’t want unsolicited feedback, you can safely take action without fearing unacceptably negative consequences. Maybe someone likes being pranked in some ways but not others, and I use a prank they don’t really enjoy. However, since they did not add their names to the list, it suggests that they think they will be okay with most pranks (even if they may not like it). The list doesn’t ensure I never violate other people’s boundaries; it makes it safer for me to explore.
Strong upvote for this comment, which contains imo very useful insight.
We may not even realise where our boundaries lie until someone violates it.
This is a crucial point; people are often wrong about what they will be okay with, when they make their predictions in advance. I’m not at all in BDSM culture, but one thing that I’ve learned from people who are, and ported over to my own philosophy, is awareness of the following dynamic:
Person A offers Person B a specific experience (e.g. “I will do X, Y, and Z.”)
Person B misunderstands Person A as offering them a good experience (e.g. “I will do X, Y, and Z [and you will like it].”)
The experience turns out to be unenjoyable
Person B feels betrayed or lied-to by Person A, and (understandably) reacts with anger or other strong negative emotion
Person A feels wrongly accused by Person B, and (understandably) reacts with confusion and hurt and possibly goes on the counterattack themselves
… all of which is circumvented if people can get on the level of “Okay, I’m going to try this experience because I expect it to be good, and also I expect I’ve got the resources to handle my own reactions if I’m wrong about that, and also I expect I’ve got the external support to handle things if I’m wrong about that. But either way, it won’t be anybody else’s ‘fault’.”
The list doesn’t ensure I never violate other people’s boundaries; it makes it safer for me to explore.
I suspect that most human social problems would be solved if we had neural implants downloading other people’s personal boundaries into our brains as knowsense—automatic intuition we don’t have to think about. Essentially it would be an expansion of cognitive empathy, which is sorely needed. Then, everyone would know exactly how to treat everyone else they meet, and it would be easier to recognize malign actors who willingly refuse to respect boundaries, as they don’t have the “I didn’t know!” excuse.
Concerning your final questions, in response to what could be done:
If we were in a future with augmented reality (as in, people wear smart glasses or something), and people had accurate self-images of their personal boundaries, then those people could make their boundaries visible in that augmented reality.
So if I wanted to depict large boundaries, I could choose to look visibly spiky, like a sea urchin; whereas if I wanted to indicate small boundaries, I could choose something very fluffy instead.
In other words, if the problem is that we all have the equivalent of invisible auras, and so people can’t tell how those look without probing them in ways that risk rejection or reproach, then one solution is to make those boundaries (and their feedback to interaction) as visible and expressive and reactive as possible. Transform them in a way that allows a Gears-level understanding of them.
Not really a response, just something I thought of while reading this comment:
The obvious solution to people having different and unclear boundaries is to make those boundaries clearer, such as by asking for explicit consent, or by having a No-Prank List mentioned in johnswentworth’s comment. Stating boundaries too clearly may lead to misuse though, but I suppose it does also make bad actors more obvious, because they can no longer hide behind the excuse of ignorance.
Nonetheless, even if we do somehow manage to convey most of our boundaries (e.g. via AR glasses), it would be highly unlikely that we’d be able to communicate all our boundaries all the time. Boundaries are sensitive to context and may change from moment to moment. We may not even realise where our boundaries lie until someone violates it. It would be impractical to find ways to make our boundaries clear enough that accidental boundary violations no longer happen. Worse still, if we managed to clearly communicate the simpler boundaries (where the consequence of violating boundaries are often lesser) but not the more complex boundaries (where consequences tend to be more severe), how would we get to practice negotiating ambiguous boundaries? There won’t be any simple cases to safely experiment and learn from!
Thus, the more practical solution would be to improve people’s abilities to negotiate ambiguous boundaries, such as the skills mentioned in Linda Linsefors’ comment, or learning how to say no. Or say, learning to pay attention to your personal boundaries instead of just social boundaries. (e.g. if someone touches me in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable, I move away instead of staying still just because there’s no social rule saying that it’s wrong) Another useful skill would be finding ways to limit the consequences of having your boundaries violated (or finding ways to meet your needs without violating other people’s boundaries). For example, informing your hosts beforehand that you are allergic to peanuts, or bringing earplugs to noisy places if you’re sensitive to sounds.
I’d thought that how the No-Prank List and “welcomes hugs” stickers worked was by making boundaries clearer so people know what they’re allowed to do and what they cannot do, but now it seems like their value lies more in how they limit the downsides of being wrong. Because you now know who doesn’t want to be pranked, or who doesn’t want unsolicited feedback, you can safely take action without fearing unacceptably negative consequences. Maybe someone likes being pranked in some ways but not others, and I use a prank they don’t really enjoy. However, since they did not add their names to the list, it suggests that they think they will be okay with most pranks (even if they may not like it). The list doesn’t ensure I never violate other people’s boundaries; it makes it safer for me to explore.
Strong upvote for this comment, which contains imo very useful insight.
This is a crucial point; people are often wrong about what they will be okay with, when they make their predictions in advance. I’m not at all in BDSM culture, but one thing that I’ve learned from people who are, and ported over to my own philosophy, is awareness of the following dynamic:
Person A offers Person B a specific experience (e.g. “I will do X, Y, and Z.”)
Person B misunderstands Person A as offering them a good experience (e.g. “I will do X, Y, and Z [and you will like it].”)
The experience turns out to be unenjoyable
Person B feels betrayed or lied-to by Person A, and (understandably) reacts with anger or other strong negative emotion
Person A feels wrongly accused by Person B, and (understandably) reacts with confusion and hurt and possibly goes on the counterattack themselves
… all of which is circumvented if people can get on the level of “Okay, I’m going to try this experience because I expect it to be good, and also I expect I’ve got the resources to handle my own reactions if I’m wrong about that, and also I expect I’ve got the external support to handle things if I’m wrong about that. But either way, it won’t be anybody else’s ‘fault’.”
This feels, to me, like the key.
I suspect that most human social problems would be solved if we had neural implants downloading other people’s personal boundaries into our brains as knowsense—automatic intuition we don’t have to think about. Essentially it would be an expansion of cognitive empathy, which is sorely needed. Then, everyone would know exactly how to treat everyone else they meet, and it would be easier to recognize malign actors who willingly refuse to respect boundaries, as they don’t have the “I didn’t know!” excuse.