What I mean by that is that it gets at something really important that I don’t like. The problem is that I get more pleasure from debates than almost anything else. I search for people who don’t react in the intensely negative way you describe, and I find it hard to empathise with those that do. I don’t do this because I think one method is ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’ I just don’t enjoy trying to conform to others expectations and prefer to find others who can behave in the same way. I think for most people deep down, community is more important than ideology (or indeed achieving anything), but a community where you cannot be yourself is one in which you always feel uncomfortable, whether this is intellectually confrontational or indirect. Does anyone know of any other environments like Less Wrong where an intellectually direct way of communicating wont get you flamed to death?
Thanks, I think? You’re not explicit about why it makes you feel bad, and I’m curious. (Rather, while you address it in the next sentence, I’m not sure I understand what kind of “feeling bad” you mean.)
I think for most people deep down, community is more important than ideology (or indeed achieving anything)
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.
but a community where you cannot be yourself is one in which you always feel uncomfortable
This is why it bothers me to see it happen. I’m an empathetic sort, and seeing my friend try to fit in like a square peg in a round pegboard makes me cringe. (Well, that, and I’m one of the people who finds the behavior obnoxious when applied to the wrong context.)
an intellectually direct way of communicating
I think this is an interesting way to phrase it, although I can’t put my finger on why. What would you call the opposite? I’m on the lookout for terms to use for these which don’t imply value on either side, since the only criteria for value I see are utility and effectiveness, which are context-dependent.
I think this section of your post is part of what makes me feel bad about your comment. The reason I said I like it, is because I think it’s important that people can talk about these things and the fact that your comments affect me in that way highlights that they are important to me.
I would have worded this more strongly, myself. In my experience, people who are
themselves inclined towards reasoned debate, even civilly, drastically overestimate
how much other people are also inclined towards debate and argument.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I don’t think I drastically overestimate others’ interest in debate, I’m painfully aware of how much hostility there is to making direct statements about even slightly controversial issues. When I talk that way with others, I’m not doing it to fit in, I’m doing it because I want to and because I feel driven to. I feel frustrated at having a different personality from the majority and don’t view others lifestyles as inherently more legitimate than my own. In particular, I have a desire to understand why society and my community works as it does. I feel there is a great deal of unspoken social dynamics and traditions which act as a mask to unjustified status hierarchies and passive aggressive conflict. I love the directness of reasoned argument because I feel that it is basically fair. It can quickly sear away self delusions and unjustified assumptions, getting to a lasting truth. A truth that while unpalatable is, at its best, independent of who has said it and how it has been said. Avoiding the undesirable (for me at least) political maneuvering that seems to dominate so much of society.
For me, I’m looking for a community which is honest and fearless with itself and others. I’m less interested in productivity or instrumental rationality than simply being able to discuss issues in a direct way so that I can get a better understanding of them for my own satisfaction. Without this opportunity, I feel I am engaging in a social dance that never satisfies my desire to find what is true and what is important.
In terms of a neutral opposite something like:
Psychologically accommodating
might be good. It emphasises the fact that the communication is designed to be easy to absorb without implying manipulation. Both sound like they would be useful and both subtly imply their weaknesses (i.e. insult and compromise).
Hmm—I don’t think that either honesty or fearlessness requires directness.
a social dance that never satisfies my desire to find what is true
You can learn a lot from the social dance if you know how to read it, including some things it’s very hard to communicate any other way.
My point here is not to refute your perspective, just to observe that your goals (honesty, truth, and so forth) do not necessarily require directness. Human language is an imperfect tool for conveying the contents of human minds. Only ever using it directly limits us to expressing the symbols it has words for. Taking advantage of implication and social convention lets us derive more information from our limited symbol set.
The difference is like counting in unary vs. counting in decimal. Instead of only having the presence or absence of symbols to communicate value, you get the benefit of place values. With a frustratingly subtle change in expression (moving a digit to the left), you get the power to say much more, and more succinctly.
Obviously it’s not as useful when discussing topics that we do have words for, but for difficult-to-nail-down things like emotion and desire, I find it invaluable.
Psychologically accommodating
I like that. I might not call it catchy, but it’s definitely a clear descriptor, and I think it’s accurate.
Oh and I should add, I like your forest
Thanks! I don’t put as much active work into it as perhaps it deserves.
I like your post because it makes me feel bad.
What I mean by that is that it gets at something really important that I don’t like. The problem is that I get more pleasure from debates than almost anything else. I search for people who don’t react in the intensely negative way you describe, and I find it hard to empathise with those that do. I don’t do this because I think one method is ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’ I just don’t enjoy trying to conform to others expectations and prefer to find others who can behave in the same way. I think for most people deep down, community is more important than ideology (or indeed achieving anything), but a community where you cannot be yourself is one in which you always feel uncomfortable, whether this is intellectually confrontational or indirect. Does anyone know of any other environments like Less Wrong where an intellectually direct way of communicating wont get you flamed to death?
Thanks, I think? You’re not explicit about why it makes you feel bad, and I’m curious. (Rather, while you address it in the next sentence, I’m not sure I understand what kind of “feeling bad” you mean.)
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.
This is why it bothers me to see it happen. I’m an empathetic sort, and seeing my friend try to fit in like a square peg in a round pegboard makes me cringe. (Well, that, and I’m one of the people who finds the behavior obnoxious when applied to the wrong context.)
I think this is an interesting way to phrase it, although I can’t put my finger on why. What would you call the opposite? I’m on the lookout for terms to use for these which don’t imply value on either side, since the only criteria for value I see are utility and effectiveness, which are context-dependent.
I think this section of your post is part of what makes me feel bad about your comment. The reason I said I like it, is because I think it’s important that people can talk about these things and the fact that your comments affect me in that way highlights that they are important to me.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I don’t think I drastically overestimate others’ interest in debate, I’m painfully aware of how much hostility there is to making direct statements about even slightly controversial issues. When I talk that way with others, I’m not doing it to fit in, I’m doing it because I want to and because I feel driven to. I feel frustrated at having a different personality from the majority and don’t view others lifestyles as inherently more legitimate than my own. In particular, I have a desire to understand why society and my community works as it does. I feel there is a great deal of unspoken social dynamics and traditions which act as a mask to unjustified status hierarchies and passive aggressive conflict. I love the directness of reasoned argument because I feel that it is basically fair. It can quickly sear away self delusions and unjustified assumptions, getting to a lasting truth. A truth that while unpalatable is, at its best, independent of who has said it and how it has been said. Avoiding the undesirable (for me at least) political maneuvering that seems to dominate so much of society.
For me, I’m looking for a community which is honest and fearless with itself and others. I’m less interested in productivity or instrumental rationality than simply being able to discuss issues in a direct way so that I can get a better understanding of them for my own satisfaction. Without this opportunity, I feel I am engaging in a social dance that never satisfies my desire to find what is true and what is important.
In terms of a neutral opposite something like:
Psychologically accommodating
might be good. It emphasises the fact that the communication is designed to be easy to absorb without implying manipulation. Both sound like they would be useful and both subtly imply their weaknesses (i.e. insult and compromise).
Oh and I should add, I like your forest : )
Ah, I think I understand now. Thank you.
Hmm—I don’t think that either honesty or fearlessness requires directness.
You can learn a lot from the social dance if you know how to read it, including some things it’s very hard to communicate any other way.
My point here is not to refute your perspective, just to observe that your goals (honesty, truth, and so forth) do not necessarily require directness. Human language is an imperfect tool for conveying the contents of human minds. Only ever using it directly limits us to expressing the symbols it has words for. Taking advantage of implication and social convention lets us derive more information from our limited symbol set.
The difference is like counting in unary vs. counting in decimal. Instead of only having the presence or absence of symbols to communicate value, you get the benefit of place values. With a frustratingly subtle change in expression (moving a digit to the left), you get the power to say much more, and more succinctly.
Obviously it’s not as useful when discussing topics that we do have words for, but for difficult-to-nail-down things like emotion and desire, I find it invaluable.
I like that. I might not call it catchy, but it’s definitely a clear descriptor, and I think it’s accurate.
Thanks! I don’t put as much active work into it as perhaps it deserves.