People, particularly intelligent people, are notorious for underestimating inferential distance so I can not pretend to speak to just how blatantly obvious a particular concept is to a general population. I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake. He more or less assumed ‘not treating everyone as though they were male’ as the starting point in the discussion and worked from there.
The first time someone’s position is misrepresented it is a simple mistake. Once it becomes a pattern it points to something deeper. In this case a conflict between logical reasoning and (in this case extremely minor) social politics. These are two incompatible kinds of thought and it is always a mistake to discuss a question of what people ‘should do’ from a perspective of logical coherency. Well, unless you are masochistic.
(Note that this interpretation is giving the maximal benefit of the doubt. That is, not assuming that the people Phil is talking to actually lack comprehension skills.)
I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake.
Overwhelmingly clear to you, perhaps. The context I had for his original claim was:
If this is a gender-specific thing that drives women away, then the obvious solution would be to have users identify themselves as women at signup, and have their usernames show up in pink, so we know to be nice to them. Yet I don’t think this would be less offensive to women! If I treat everybody the same, I’m discriminating against women; if I treat them differently, I’m also discriminating against women.
This to me strongly suggests that men are the default, and women are an aberrant case, with the implication that treating everyone the same means treating everyone like a man (since no one currently has a pink username).
Now, Alicorn could have worded her response better- it wasn’t clear she was saying “why not be nicer to everyone?”- and that could have cleared up some of the confusion much earlier.
Note that this interpretation is giving the maximal benefit of the doubt. That is, not assuming that the people Phil is talking to actually lack comprehension skills.
Then… why did you use words like “misinterpretation” instead of “miscommunication”? Saying “oh, both people were unclear, it looks like we were talking past one another ” is far better than the approach you took. To me, your comment reads like defensiveness in response to an accusation of sexism, as well as dismissal by bringing up “social politics” in contrast to “logical reasoning.” (If you were to gender those two phrases, which would be which?)
Then… why did you use words like “misinterpretation” instead of “miscommunication”?
They have different meanings, one applied and the difference mattered.
Saying “oh, both people were unclear, it looks like we were talking past one another ” is far better than the approach you took.
Not for the purpose of my statement. There could even be place for an additional message that the kind of behavior I described is antisocial, rude and highly undesirable. Sufficiently objectionable as to make all considerations of ‘bluntness’ trivial by comparison.
as well as dismissal by bringing up “social politics” in contrast to “logical reasoning.” (If you were to gender those two phrases, which would be which?)
You ask that question as though it should provide some rhetorical support for a point you were making. It appears instead to be loosely related tangent. I meant precisely what I said about social politics and logic. It is a message that is helpful for people who encounter questions like the one Phil asked and seek genuine understanding of how such situations work.
Questions of “should” just aren’t about creating a coherent protocol of behavior. Sometimes a coherent protocol emerges and that is great but ultimately having situations in which you are ‘doomed if you do; doomed if you don’t’ a standard part of how social rules work. The trick to navigating them is to stop expecting reason to apply and start gaming them like everyone else.
There could even be place for an additional message that the kind of behavior I described is antisocial, rude and highly undesirable. Sufficiently objectionable as to make all considerations of ‘bluntness’ trivial by comparison.
I feel this should be elaborated on, as I don’t want to misunderstand what you’re getting at here.
I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake.
It is not overwhelmingly clear to me. It wasn’t overwhemlingly clear to Vaniver. I don’t think paulfchristiano found it overwhelmingly clear either (as he argued against my own post from the opposite direction, and he certainly comprehended my meaning much better than you seemed to do).
People, particularly intelligent people, are notorious for underestimating inferential distance so I can not pretend to speak to just how blatantly obvious a particular concept is to a general population. I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake. He more or less assumed ‘not treating everyone as though they were male’ as the starting point in the discussion and worked from there.
The first time someone’s position is misrepresented it is a simple mistake. Once it becomes a pattern it points to something deeper. In this case a conflict between logical reasoning and (in this case extremely minor) social politics. These are two incompatible kinds of thought and it is always a mistake to discuss a question of what people ‘should do’ from a perspective of logical coherency. Well, unless you are masochistic.
(Note that this interpretation is giving the maximal benefit of the doubt. That is, not assuming that the people Phil is talking to actually lack comprehension skills.)
Overwhelmingly clear to you, perhaps. The context I had for his original claim was:
This to me strongly suggests that men are the default, and women are an aberrant case, with the implication that treating everyone the same means treating everyone like a man (since no one currently has a pink username).
Now, Alicorn could have worded her response better- it wasn’t clear she was saying “why not be nicer to everyone?”- and that could have cleared up some of the confusion much earlier.
Then… why did you use words like “misinterpretation” instead of “miscommunication”? Saying “oh, both people were unclear, it looks like we were talking past one another ” is far better than the approach you took. To me, your comment reads like defensiveness in response to an accusation of sexism, as well as dismissal by bringing up “social politics” in contrast to “logical reasoning.” (If you were to gender those two phrases, which would be which?)
They have different meanings, one applied and the difference mattered.
Not for the purpose of my statement. There could even be place for an additional message that the kind of behavior I described is antisocial, rude and highly undesirable. Sufficiently objectionable as to make all considerations of ‘bluntness’ trivial by comparison.
You ask that question as though it should provide some rhetorical support for a point you were making. It appears instead to be loosely related tangent. I meant precisely what I said about social politics and logic. It is a message that is helpful for people who encounter questions like the one Phil asked and seek genuine understanding of how such situations work.
Questions of “should” just aren’t about creating a coherent protocol of behavior. Sometimes a coherent protocol emerges and that is great but ultimately having situations in which you are ‘doomed if you do; doomed if you don’t’ a standard part of how social rules work. The trick to navigating them is to stop expecting reason to apply and start gaming them like everyone else.
Any comments on the context of his comment?
I feel this should be elaborated on, as I don’t want to misunderstand what you’re getting at here.
It is not overwhelmingly clear to me. It wasn’t overwhemlingly clear to Vaniver. I don’t think paulfchristiano found it overwhelmingly clear either (as he argued against my own post from the opposite direction, and he certainly comprehended my meaning much better than you seemed to do).