A friend of mine read this thread—she has long experience as a Quaker, a religion where at least a lot of people do substantial work to figure out how to deal well with each other and get work done.
Unfortunately, she doesn’t want to post here because she hates scoring systems. They make her feel like she’s being graded. I’m seriously hoping that other rationality blogs with different structures and populations evolve.
Anyway, she made a couple of points that I haven’t seen in the discussion—the definition of niceness that she grew up with included gifts and mutual aid. She said that women talk/post differently when they’re away from men—directly and without emoticons. I haven’t spent enough time in all-women groups to have an opinion about this.
women talk/post differently when they’re away from men—directly and without emoticons. I haven’t spent enough time in all-women groups to have an opinion about this.
A data point: My friend often writes on a “website for mothers”, and they have a lot of emoticons (and animated!) and use them often. (Here; ignore the language, just click on a few random articles and scroll down to comments.)
I would say that some women speak and write as your friend describes (simply because not all women are the same), but many women use the “feminine” way of speech/writing, and it’s not only when men are present. Perhaps for some of them this is natural, and others only use it strategically in presence of men.
I assume she doesn’t trust people to be benevolent.
I’m not going into the details of her emotional background, but I strongly recommend you read some of the Dysfunctional Family material at Making Light.
It’s a good short course (or medium length course) in the variety of how people’s families can affect their reactions to other people. Aliefs about how you’re going to be treated are strong stuff.
I’m not going into the details of her emotional background, but I strongly recommend you read some of the Dysfunctional Family material at Making Light
I read about a third of this and it was …enlightening?
I feel like I have a better grasp of several related world views that are rather different than my own. I also feel like I’m better able to recognize certain types of behavior and what causes them. Also, why your friend is unwilling to visit LW.
But on an internet forum, I just don’t perceive any relevant threat. Some people will like me, some won’t. Some will think I’m a bozo. So? I guess we won’t be exchanging Christmas cards. We weren’t before I came here either.
This is one Harry/Hermione disagreement where I am in Harry’s camp. Not everyone is going to like or respect you. If you let that tie you in knots for people who have a vanishingly small effect on your life, you’re setting yourself up for a rough time.
Hi, I am Berna, and I am a ‘people pleaser’, a.k.a. a wuss. You’re too right, it does mean you’re in for a rough time to have this almost pathological need to be liked. Conflict, in any way, shape or form, scares me terribly. I often wish I didn’t need to be nice all the time. You know, I really like being nice, but occasionally I’d like to have a choice about it. I’d like to be nice because, well, it’s nice, not because I’m scared not to. And yet, I dare to comment on LessWrong sometimes, isn’t that amazing?
I am a woman, and until now, I’ve always thought LW was just fine. Sure, when I comment here, I am even more careful than anywhere else I write, because the standard of writing here is so high. And sometimes, when I write something that I think might in the least be controversial, I wonder if I really don’t have time to read LW just now, or is it that I might have gotten downvotes? But that’s all about me, it isn’t a problem with LW.
LW is a haven of sanity and civility to me. Just compare it to the comments on YouTube, or any news site, the WoW forums… well, just about anywhere on the Internet. I was seriously amazed when I discovered this place a few years ago.
LW is a haven of sanity and civility to me. Just compare it to the comments on YouTube, or any news site, the WoW forums… well, just about anywhere on the Internet. I was seriously amazed when I discovered this place a few years ago.
You’re too right, it does mean you’re in for a rough time to have this almost pathological need to be liked. Conflict, in any way, shape or form, scares me terribly.
I’ve asked before “what’s so wrong about being judged?”, so if you don’t mind, I’d like to get you to elaborate on this.
I wonder whether in fact you need to be liked, and whether it’s the results of conflict, the conflict itself, or the anticipation of conflict that’s so painful. And is it conflict, or judgment?
An Aside
In the context of this conversation, I can hear the howls of protest rising—“how dare you question her description of her feelings?!” To start with, because I question my own all the time. We’re all pretty crappy at emotional introspection. And also, I question to ellicit more information to bound my interpretation. I’m often amazed at how people think they’re communicating, when it’s clear to me that what was said could mean a million and one things. I’ve done a lot of requirements analysis professionally, so I know how hard it is to accurately communicate anything, let alone feelings and perceptions.
Back to our discussion
My guess is that you don’t run around town needing to make more and more people like you, so that “needing to be liked” isn’t the most accurate expression of your need. Or maybe it is. But one can have conflict with someone one likes, so those are really two different issues.
In fact, that makes a pretty good test case. When you know someone is on your side and likes you, do you still fear conflict with them? What if you already know they dislike you? More fear? Less?
When you send in a post, are you worried about the responses you will receive? If you receive a negative one, does it really upset you? How long do you remain upset? Is it different if the exchange appears to be over, or if ongoing? After the thread is done, does your perception that the person doesn’t like you still bother you if you thinj of it weeks later?
I’d like to get a better sense of what the issue really is.
I’ve had this window open for days now, and I’m still not sure how to respond. I think it isn’t really conflict I fear, but negative judg(e)ment—rejection of me as a person. (I’ll be cast out into the cold and dark forever!)
And I dare to post here, because I think the chance of that is small; people here tend to react to what you actually say, and not to straw men they make up in their minds, like what happened in a newsgroup I used to be in long ago. Someone posted something, and I thought that could be misinterpreted, so I posted something along the lines of “someone could interpret what you say like [blabla]”, and they (and someone else) responded like I’d written \”I* think you [blabla]”. They made it clear they thought I was a horrible person for writing that, and I felt so crushed I didn’t even attempt to correct their impression, thinking it’d probably just make things even worse, and I just left that group—I could have continued reading it without posting, but I was too ashamed.
Writing this now, I feel ashamed too. No doubt you all think I’m a pathetic loser, and the only reason I’m not downvoted into negative karma is because most people don’t even care enough to click the downvote button. (Please don’t hit me, I’m down already!)
So whenever I post here, I feel scared and ashamed (more or less, depending on how controversial I think it is). And then I usually feel relieved, when I see people don’t hate me but just disagree with me. Or even give me upvotes! Yay! :-)
And I know, your next question is going to be why I would feel ashamed. After all, I did my best, and if someone misinterprets me, all I did wrong was to not write clearly enough. Dunno. I guess my subconscious thinks that where there is smoke, there is fire. If I write something so bad that it makes people hate/dislike me, then it must have been a bad thing to say, and I must be bad for even thinking of it...
My point was that I have had similar experiences, but didn’t realize it at first because it didn’t stop me joining. I’m not entirely sure what your point is, but I’m guessing you’re complaining my comment was meaningless/poorly written?
Even if your emotional reaction to online discussions is generally better than that of thin-skinned people, it doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion.
Thin-skinned people exist. Some of them can write things worth reading. Some of them are interested in rationality. Some of them will become thicker-skinned, but it’s a slow process. You don’t have to like them, but they’re part of the situation you’re living in. It looks to me as though your focus is on how you’d like them to be different rather than the fact that they (as a category rather than as individuals) just aren’t going to be different.
It took me until my early twenties to realise that not everyone was going to become thick-skinned, and that didn’t mean they were defective or lacking an ability—that it was okay.
I think it depends on how thin-skinned we’re talking. Consider a hypothetical person who is thin-skinned to the point of being unable to update one’s beliefs at all, or to take any criticism at all under advisement. IMO, such a person could definitely be described as lacking an important ability.
It’s not whether mine’s better or worse than theirs, it’s whether they have a better way available to them. As I’ve said, I have my own trust issues. I’ve closed many opportunities for myself thereby. When I see people doing the same thing, I point it out. If someone was pounding their face into a wall, I’d point out that was unnecessary too.
Why are their options That Which Must not be Named?
And it’s not whether I’d like them to be different, it’s whether they’d like themselves to be different. They’re not participating in a venue they’d like to participate in. I am. If they’re waiting around for the forum to change in tone, they’re waiting for a train that’s a long way off.
Whether they change really isn’t a burning issue for me. It’s too bad if they don’t participate. But the world is full of people who aren’t participating. I live in the world that is, and there are plenty of discussions for me to have in that world.
I supplied links on modes of discussion. I’ve discussed the political dynamic of people with different preferences sharing a commons. I’ve explained how my saying “you’re wrong, and here’s why” is intended as an invitation for further discussion on my part. I’ve discussed suggestions of ways in which I might be different, and I have shared my perceptions of the trade offs involved. I’ve asked things like “why is it so horrible to be judged?”, so that I might understand the attitude better, and thereby more effectively deal with it. I’ve also asked what’s with the attitude that one can’t even suggest that the nicies change, since it seems to me the most incongruent aspect of the conversation.
I’ve discussed that those offended have inaccurate priors on the hostility of others, and offered evidence for update.
Isn’t that what we do around here, share evidence to update our priors? Why is that off limits here?
I don’t prima facie see anything wrong with suggesting that unusually thin-skinned people should stop being so thin-skinned.
That being said (and I’m not necessarily suggesting that you disagree with this or vice versa, I’m just saying it because I think it should be said, either way) given that the world does contain people of differing skin thicknesses, I’d argue that it isn’t optimal to just expect people to change their ways and not modulate one’s own behaviour. Applied generally, that course of action is guaranteed to cause some emotional hurt to some people. There are easy ways to moderate this hurt which don’t involve significant sacrifices in other areas. As long as it doesn’t prevent rational discussion, or force people to append big, circuitous apologies to their arguments, courtesy is a net positive in most social forums.
I also think that courtesy is beneficial in that it often eases the skin-thickening process, but that’s another conversation, and I don’t have any numbers to back that up.
I’d argue that it isn’t optimal to just expect people to change their ways and not modulate one’s own behaviour.
It isn’t optimal for anyone to do that.
courtesy is a net positive in most social forums.
The problem is that we have a fundamental disagreement over what behavior qualifies as courteous, at least in theory.
That’s the other problem. Lots of talk in generalities, with few concretes. We’re talking about trade offs without elaborating on the specifics of the trade off, but it’s the specifics that determine the balance.
You’re right, I should have used a better term than courtesy, but I didn’t want to over complicate the sentence. I should have instead said, “making concessions to other people’s ideas of courtesy (and since this is an open forum, that sets quite a high upper bound for the possible politeness-expectations of the audience)”.
What I’m getting at is: the only real cost of softening one’s tone is a slight reduction in efficiency. You can still say all the same things, it just requires a little extra footwork to steer around offending people by adding fluff like, “I don’t mean to offend you, but I want to convince you that...” in front of the words, “you are wrong.” Or whatever. That’s a very trivial example.
Obviously it’s too much to hope for that one could avoid offending anyone ever—the effort required would outweigh the benefits. But there has to be an optimal point on the curve between “offending too many people for lack of fluff” and “drowning in fluff and not getting anything accomplished”. And ultimate point I’m trying to make is that it isn’t enough for one to just maintain a softness of tone that is comfortable for oneself—one also has to put some effort into determining where one sits on the overall scale of politeness-expectation, and accommodating those who are higher up the scale, regardless of whether or not their expectations would be optimal in a world where nobody’s feelings ever got hurt. EDIT: in fact, this is one of the things I mean by the word courtesy, but I can see that that might not be a widely accepted element of the definition.
Again, I’m not necessarily suggesting that you personally need to correct your behaviour—I haven’t been following your conversations. This is just a general principle that I wanted to voice.
What I’m getting at is: the only real cost of softening one’s tone is a slight reduction in efficiency.
I’ve discussed the costs elsewhere. I’d add the game theoretic costs of getting into a “I’m offended, you have to change” game. The costs of annoying and/or offending someone who doesn’t appreciate being emotionally handled. The cost of not conveying your actual personality in the conversation. The non trivial cost of always maintaining two channels in every conversation—topic and niceness. Even if “only a little” niceness is required, the mental attention required likely has some floor.
one also has to put some effort into determining where one sits on the overall scale of politeness-expectation, and accommodating those who are higher up the scale
I think that’s reasonable. In the case of a shared space, some tradeoff and consideration is expected on all sides.
Well, sure, if you do go on to think of them that way then you’re doing it wrong. I’m not suggesting that anyone change how thin-skinned they are, though.
It’s at least worth finding out what the premises are behind your reaction.
I don’t think her reaction makes a tremendous amount of sense, at least as she explains it. Nonetheless, she’s an intelligent, interesting, and well-informed person, and I don’t think the world would be a worse place if there were a rationality blog without a scoring system.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time in venues with and without scoring, and I don’t see any correlation with the quality of the discussion.
I don’t think her reaction makes a tremendous amount of sense, at least as she explains it.
I do, and I didn’t have any kind of dysfunctional upbringing. I agree with your friend, and if such a place existed, I would enjoy participating there.
It’s possible to be intelligent and interested in rationality, but uninterested in being constantly graded and judged.
She said that women talk/post differently when they’re away from men—directly and without emoticons.
My impression is that that’s the result you get at women’s colleges, and even women from women’s colleges after they leave.
So they do that at work just to torment us? That would be just way too funny.
But I think that’s not really it. Most men respond to a woman’s relatively greater emotional tone on a personal/sexual level. In terms of business and getting things done, it’s not appreciated, but we’re people first, and corporate cogs second.
A friend of mine read this thread—she has long experience as a Quaker, a religion where at least a lot of people do substantial work to figure out how to deal well with each other and get work done.
Unfortunately, she doesn’t want to post here because she hates scoring systems. They make her feel like she’s being graded. I’m seriously hoping that other rationality blogs with different structures and populations evolve.
Anyway, she made a couple of points that I haven’t seen in the discussion—the definition of niceness that she grew up with included gifts and mutual aid. She said that women talk/post differently when they’re away from men—directly and without emoticons. I haven’t spent enough time in all-women groups to have an opinion about this.
A data point: My friend often writes on a “website for mothers”, and they have a lot of emoticons (and animated!) and use them often. (Here; ignore the language, just click on a few random articles and scroll down to comments.)
I would say that some women speak and write as your friend describes (simply because not all women are the same), but many women use the “feminine” way of speech/writing, and it’s not only when men are present. Perhaps for some of them this is natural, and others only use it strategically in presence of men.
Why is it so horrible to be judged?
I assume she doesn’t trust people to be benevolent.
I’m not going into the details of her emotional background, but I strongly recommend you read some of the Dysfunctional Family material at Making Light.
It’s a good short course (or medium length course) in the variety of how people’s families can affect their reactions to other people. Aliefs about how you’re going to be treated are strong stuff.
I read about a third of this and it was …enlightening?
Would you care to expand on that?
I feel like I have a better grasp of several related world views that are rather different than my own. I also feel like I’m better able to recognize certain types of behavior and what causes them. Also, why your friend is unwilling to visit LW.
I have my own trust issues.
But on an internet forum, I just don’t perceive any relevant threat. Some people will like me, some won’t. Some will think I’m a bozo. So? I guess we won’t be exchanging Christmas cards. We weren’t before I came here either.
This is one Harry/Hermione disagreement where I am in Harry’s camp. Not everyone is going to like or respect you. If you let that tie you in knots for people who have a vanishingly small effect on your life, you’re setting yourself up for a rough time.
Hi, I am Berna, and I am a ‘people pleaser’, a.k.a. a wuss. You’re too right, it does mean you’re in for a rough time to have this almost pathological need to be liked. Conflict, in any way, shape or form, scares me terribly. I often wish I didn’t need to be nice all the time. You know, I really like being nice, but occasionally I’d like to have a choice about it. I’d like to be nice because, well, it’s nice, not because I’m scared not to. And yet, I dare to comment on LessWrong sometimes, isn’t that amazing?
I am a woman, and until now, I’ve always thought LW was just fine. Sure, when I comment here, I am even more careful than anywhere else I write, because the standard of writing here is so high. And sometimes, when I write something that I think might in the least be controversial, I wonder if I really don’t have time to read LW just now, or is it that I might have gotten downvotes? But that’s all about me, it isn’t a problem with LW.
LW is a haven of sanity and civility to me. Just compare it to the comments on YouTube, or any news site, the WoW forums… well, just about anywhere on the Internet. I was seriously amazed when I discovered this place a few years ago.
That is high praise. Thank you.
Hi, Berna.
I’ve asked before “what’s so wrong about being judged?”, so if you don’t mind, I’d like to get you to elaborate on this.
I wonder whether in fact you need to be liked, and whether it’s the results of conflict, the conflict itself, or the anticipation of conflict that’s so painful. And is it conflict, or judgment?
An Aside
Back to our discussion My guess is that you don’t run around town needing to make more and more people like you, so that “needing to be liked” isn’t the most accurate expression of your need. Or maybe it is. But one can have conflict with someone one likes, so those are really two different issues.
In fact, that makes a pretty good test case. When you know someone is on your side and likes you, do you still fear conflict with them? What if you already know they dislike you? More fear? Less?
When you send in a post, are you worried about the responses you will receive? If you receive a negative one, does it really upset you? How long do you remain upset? Is it different if the exchange appears to be over, or if ongoing? After the thread is done, does your perception that the person doesn’t like you still bother you if you thinj of it weeks later?
I’d like to get a better sense of what the issue really is.
Oh man, those are hard (but good) questions.
I’ve had this window open for days now, and I’m still not sure how to respond. I think it isn’t really conflict I fear, but negative judg(e)ment—rejection of me as a person. (I’ll be cast out into the cold and dark forever!)
And I dare to post here, because I think the chance of that is small; people here tend to react to what you actually say, and not to straw men they make up in their minds, like what happened in a newsgroup I used to be in long ago. Someone posted something, and I thought that could be misinterpreted, so I posted something along the lines of “someone could interpret what you say like [blabla]”, and they (and someone else) responded like I’d written \”I* think you [blabla]”. They made it clear they thought I was a horrible person for writing that, and I felt so crushed I didn’t even attempt to correct their impression, thinking it’d probably just make things even worse, and I just left that group—I could have continued reading it without posting, but I was too ashamed.
Writing this now, I feel ashamed too. No doubt you all think I’m a pathetic loser, and the only reason I’m not downvoted into negative karma is because most people don’t even care enough to click the downvote button. (Please don’t hit me, I’m down already!)
So whenever I post here, I feel scared and ashamed (more or less, depending on how controversial I think it is). And then I usually feel relieved, when I see people don’t hate me but just disagree with me. Or even give me upvotes! Yay! :-)
And I know, your next question is going to be why I would feel ashamed. After all, I did my best, and if someone misinterprets me, all I did wrong was to not write clearly enough. Dunno. I guess my subconscious thinks that where there is smoke, there is fire. If I write something so bad that it makes people hate/dislike me, then it must have been a bad thing to say, and I must be bad for even thinking of it...
suddenly gets it
So THAT’S what they were talking about!
EDIT: wait, some people don’t join the community because of that?
Well, Yvain of all people said he doesn’t post very much because of that...
(For example, would this discussion be worse if your comment was absent or crafted more carefully?)
My point was that I have had similar experiences, but didn’t realize it at first because it didn’t stop me joining. I’m not entirely sure what your point is, but I’m guessing you’re complaining my comment was meaningless/poorly written?
Even if your emotional reaction to online discussions is generally better than that of thin-skinned people, it doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion.
Thin-skinned people exist. Some of them can write things worth reading. Some of them are interested in rationality. Some of them will become thicker-skinned, but it’s a slow process. You don’t have to like them, but they’re part of the situation you’re living in. It looks to me as though your focus is on how you’d like them to be different rather than the fact that they (as a category rather than as individuals) just aren’t going to be different.
It took me until my early twenties to realise that not everyone was going to become thick-skinned, and that didn’t mean they were defective or lacking an ability—that it was okay.
I think it depends on how thin-skinned we’re talking. Consider a hypothetical person who is thin-skinned to the point of being unable to update one’s beliefs at all, or to take any criticism at all under advisement. IMO, such a person could definitely be described as lacking an important ability.
It’s not whether mine’s better or worse than theirs, it’s whether they have a better way available to them. As I’ve said, I have my own trust issues. I’ve closed many opportunities for myself thereby. When I see people doing the same thing, I point it out. If someone was pounding their face into a wall, I’d point out that was unnecessary too.
Why are their options That Which Must not be Named?
And it’s not whether I’d like them to be different, it’s whether they’d like themselves to be different. They’re not participating in a venue they’d like to participate in. I am. If they’re waiting around for the forum to change in tone, they’re waiting for a train that’s a long way off.
Whether they change really isn’t a burning issue for me. It’s too bad if they don’t participate. But the world is full of people who aren’t participating. I live in the world that is, and there are plenty of discussions for me to have in that world.
I supplied links on modes of discussion. I’ve discussed the political dynamic of people with different preferences sharing a commons. I’ve explained how my saying “you’re wrong, and here’s why” is intended as an invitation for further discussion on my part. I’ve discussed suggestions of ways in which I might be different, and I have shared my perceptions of the trade offs involved. I’ve asked things like “why is it so horrible to be judged?”, so that I might understand the attitude better, and thereby more effectively deal with it. I’ve also asked what’s with the attitude that one can’t even suggest that the nicies change, since it seems to me the most incongruent aspect of the conversation.
I’ve discussed that those offended have inaccurate priors on the hostility of others, and offered evidence for update.
Isn’t that what we do around here, share evidence to update our priors? Why is that off limits here?
I don’t prima facie see anything wrong with suggesting that unusually thin-skinned people should stop being so thin-skinned.
That being said (and I’m not necessarily suggesting that you disagree with this or vice versa, I’m just saying it because I think it should be said, either way) given that the world does contain people of differing skin thicknesses, I’d argue that it isn’t optimal to just expect people to change their ways and not modulate one’s own behaviour. Applied generally, that course of action is guaranteed to cause some emotional hurt to some people. There are easy ways to moderate this hurt which don’t involve significant sacrifices in other areas. As long as it doesn’t prevent rational discussion, or force people to append big, circuitous apologies to their arguments, courtesy is a net positive in most social forums.
I also think that courtesy is beneficial in that it often eases the skin-thickening process, but that’s another conversation, and I don’t have any numbers to back that up.
It isn’t optimal for anyone to do that.
The problem is that we have a fundamental disagreement over what behavior qualifies as courteous, at least in theory.
That’s the other problem. Lots of talk in generalities, with few concretes. We’re talking about trade offs without elaborating on the specifics of the trade off, but it’s the specifics that determine the balance.
You’re right, I should have used a better term than courtesy, but I didn’t want to over complicate the sentence. I should have instead said, “making concessions to other people’s ideas of courtesy (and since this is an open forum, that sets quite a high upper bound for the possible politeness-expectations of the audience)”.
What I’m getting at is: the only real cost of softening one’s tone is a slight reduction in efficiency. You can still say all the same things, it just requires a little extra footwork to steer around offending people by adding fluff like, “I don’t mean to offend you, but I want to convince you that...” in front of the words, “you are wrong.” Or whatever. That’s a very trivial example.
Obviously it’s too much to hope for that one could avoid offending anyone ever—the effort required would outweigh the benefits. But there has to be an optimal point on the curve between “offending too many people for lack of fluff” and “drowning in fluff and not getting anything accomplished”. And ultimate point I’m trying to make is that it isn’t enough for one to just maintain a softness of tone that is comfortable for oneself—one also has to put some effort into determining where one sits on the overall scale of politeness-expectation, and accommodating those who are higher up the scale, regardless of whether or not their expectations would be optimal in a world where nobody’s feelings ever got hurt. EDIT: in fact, this is one of the things I mean by the word courtesy, but I can see that that might not be a widely accepted element of the definition.
Again, I’m not necessarily suggesting that you personally need to correct your behaviour—I haven’t been following your conversations. This is just a general principle that I wanted to voice.
I’ve discussed the costs elsewhere. I’d add the game theoretic costs of getting into a “I’m offended, you have to change” game. The costs of annoying and/or offending someone who doesn’t appreciate being emotionally handled. The cost of not conveying your actual personality in the conversation. The non trivial cost of always maintaining two channels in every conversation—topic and niceness. Even if “only a little” niceness is required, the mental attention required likely has some floor.
I think that’s reasonable. In the case of a shared space, some tradeoff and consideration is expected on all sides.
It’s that you then think of them as lesser or failed humans. This is an error I eventually realised was an error.
Well, sure, if you do go on to think of them that way then you’re doing it wrong. I’m not suggesting that anyone change how thin-skinned they are, though.
But are they women?
it’s probably not good that whenever I hear about people like that I feel a flash of contempt and a thought of “Good riddance” goes through my head.
It’s at least worth finding out what the premises are behind your reaction.
I don’t think her reaction makes a tremendous amount of sense, at least as she explains it. Nonetheless, she’s an intelligent, interesting, and well-informed person, and I don’t think the world would be a worse place if there were a rationality blog without a scoring system.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time in venues with and without scoring, and I don’t see any correlation with the quality of the discussion.
I do, and I didn’t have any kind of dysfunctional upbringing. I agree with your friend, and if such a place existed, I would enjoy participating there.
It’s possible to be intelligent and interested in rationality, but uninterested in being constantly graded and judged.
What do you find so unpleasant about being judged?
Why not?
My impression is that that’s the result you get at women’s colleges, and even women from women’s colleges after they leave.
So they do that at work just to torment us? That would be just way too funny.
But I think that’s not really it. Most men respond to a woman’s relatively greater emotional tone on a personal/sexual level. In terms of business and getting things done, it’s not appreciated, but we’re people first, and corporate cogs second.