Perhaps start by actively distinguishing between “people I actively dislike” and “people who I don’t actively dislike, and am assigning the dislike label to based solely on my prior that I dislike most people”.
Also, in regard to inauthenticity, do you regard making small talk as inauthentic, even if you are saying true things? For example, is it inauthentic to pay someone a compliment if you honestly believe the compliment, but are only making it as a way to start a conversation and find out whether you like them? If yes, I suggest you taboo “inauthentic” and explain why you don’t like that approach. I suspect that exploring that label more generally may be fertile ground.
More generally, do you have a problem with people who are not bothered by inauthentic conversation, but also are happy to have authentic conversations? If so, I suggest asking whether this is an area where you should work to cultivate tolerance of tolerance.
To distinguish these people, I would ask what sorts of conversations you consider authentic (again, taboo that word!), and think about what sorts of authentic conversations are easier to start up than others, and what sorts of settings would be appropriate contexts for those conversations. To pick an example from elsewhere in the thread, gaming stores and clubs / groups might be a good one, because it’s easy to start a conversation about what types of games people enjoy and why, or to discuss strategy for a particular game. In other words: there’s an external reason that makes the authentic conversation on topic.
If you’re having trouble finding such groups, have you considered making one? Start a gaming club. Start a LW meetup. Is there an athiest group on campus already?
Perhaps start by actively distinguishing between “people I actively dislike” and “people who I don’t actively dislike, and am assigning the dislike label to based solely on my prior that I dislike most people”.
Also, in regard to inauthenticity, do you regard making small talk as inauthentic, even if you are saying true things? For example, is it inauthentic to pay someone a compliment if you honestly believe the compliment, but are only making it as a way to start a conversation and find out whether you like them? If yes, I suggest you taboo “inauthentic” and explain why you don’t like that approach. I suspect that exploring that label more generally may be fertile ground.
More generally, do you have a problem with people who are not bothered by inauthentic conversation, but also are happy to have authentic conversations? If so, I suggest asking whether this is an area where you should work to cultivate tolerance of tolerance.
To distinguish these people, I would ask what sorts of conversations you consider authentic (again, taboo that word!), and think about what sorts of authentic conversations are easier to start up than others, and what sorts of settings would be appropriate contexts for those conversations. To pick an example from elsewhere in the thread, gaming stores and clubs / groups might be a good one, because it’s easy to start a conversation about what types of games people enjoy and why, or to discuss strategy for a particular game. In other words: there’s an external reason that makes the authentic conversation on topic.
If you’re having trouble finding such groups, have you considered making one? Start a gaming club. Start a LW meetup. Is there an athiest group on campus already?