I like this as a thing to think about, but, Shifgrethor is just a way less easy-to-say or evocative word than “Moloch”, “Child of Omelas” or “Dark Forest”, alas, so I don’t think this particular one will really make it into my repertoir.
I am also a little dubious that this is defining a concept which doesn’t just mostly overlap with “face”, which is substantially older, already well-known, and infinitely easier to remember & write.
Most of these examples seem like substituting in ‘face’ or ‘lose face’ would work just fine. “Senator, may I cause you to lose face by criticizing you publicly?” “He didn’t like the advice I gave him about his errors because he lost face.” “She felt infantilized and like losing face when her boyfriend told her how to solve something instead of commiserating with her.”
I think this post introduced an important new angle for this, which is not about face, but instead about “I was actually just trying to solve a different problem than the one you’re giving advice about, and it is disruptive to my problem-solving process for you to jam your frame into it. This is bad a) because it’s annoying and time-wasting, and b) because there is something delicate about my thought process, and your frame is sort of violating (albeit maybe in a minor, non-traumatizing way)
(In addition to this not-seeming-true-across-the-board… also, literally nobody has ever made this claim to me. The entire reason I’m hypothesizing it is because this post suggested it, and it made sense given my model of how my/friends’ cognition seems to work. So, IMO the slightly-aggro comment here is just basically wrong? Unless you’ve specifically seen people claim this?)
It does seem like this is pretty different from losing face, and having one word for both of them isn’t obviously the best way to carve up concept space.
“Face” is pretty close, and it’s cool to be reminded that that word (in this context) exists.
The main difference as I see it is that shifgrethor is narrower. At least as I propose the term be used (which is not as subtle or mysterious as in the book), it’s specific to advice. You can also lose face by e.g. not responding to taunting, or something. Shifgrethor would have no opinion on that.
I like this as a thing to think about, but, Shifgrethor is just a way less easy-to-say or evocative word than “Moloch”, “Child of Omelas” or “Dark Forest”, alas, so I don’t think this particular one will really make it into my repertoir.
I am also a little dubious that this is defining a concept which doesn’t just mostly overlap with “face”, which is substantially older, already well-known, and infinitely easier to remember & write.
Most of these examples seem like substituting in ‘face’ or ‘lose face’ would work just fine. “Senator, may I cause you to lose face by criticizing you publicly?” “He didn’t like the advice I gave him about his errors because he lost face.” “She felt infantilized and like losing face when her boyfriend told her how to solve something instead of commiserating with her.”
I think this post introduced an important new angle for this, which is not about face, but instead about “I was actually just trying to solve a different problem than the one you’re giving advice about, and it is disruptive to my problem-solving process for you to jam your frame into it. This is bad a) because it’s annoying and time-wasting, and b) because there is something delicate about my thought process, and your frame is sort of violating (albeit maybe in a minor, non-traumatizing way)
That is what someone might claim, yes, to avoid losing face by too visibly caring about losing face or attempting to manipulate it.
Sure, that’s a thing that can happen. I’m moderately confident the other thing is a relatively common thing to happen as well.
(In addition to this not-seeming-true-across-the-board… also, literally nobody has ever made this claim to me. The entire reason I’m hypothesizing it is because this post suggested it, and it made sense given my model of how my/friends’ cognition seems to work. So, IMO the slightly-aggro comment here is just basically wrong? Unless you’ve specifically seen people claim this?)
It does seem like this is pretty different from losing face, and having one word for both of them isn’t obviously the best way to carve up concept space.
“Face” is pretty close, and it’s cool to be reminded that that word (in this context) exists.
The main difference as I see it is that shifgrethor is narrower. At least as I propose the term be used (which is not as subtle or mysterious as in the book), it’s specific to advice. You can also lose face by e.g. not responding to taunting, or something. Shifgrethor would have no opinion on that.
“Advice can be violating” is the concept-handle I think I will take away.
Reasonable! It strikes me as a little silly for in person conversation, but I find it fun to type and read.