To the latter, your interlocutor says (or likely, thinks to themselves):
“Uh, actually, I was rather enjoying that conversation. I thought it had value. But I guess I was wrong; it seems you do not find me interesting, or think that I am annoying. That hurts.”
Actually when a person is hurt they might not be in a state of mind to phrase it like that.
I know that I tend to focus on the feeling of being hurt first, and it is incredibly difficult to not react indirectly with defensiveness which would be directed at something other than “I guess you don’t find me interesting”, because that shows vulnerability. A person (like unreflected me) might instinctively attack in a different area to “retaliate” to what they felt was a surprise attack on their self-worth. I am working on this, but I doubt most people with this problem are.
Which should be kept in mind, I think: I agree with ChristianKI that open communication is preferable here, but in a situation where you create emotions in the other person they might find it impossible to stay rational even if their system 2 wants to.
Solution? I actually do like the idea of ending useless conversations very much. I would rephrase it less bluntly which reduces the confrontation. What bothers me about this one is definite statements, e.g. “We should stop”. It implies you expect the other person to have the same opinion as you, which isn’t in the spirit of Tell Culture.
Suggestion:
“I got the feeling that this conversation is not really helping me right now. What is your impression on this? If you agree with me, perhaps we could switch topics?”
(or offer to shift the conversation into a specific direction that you would enjoy)
Generally I would match the carefulness to my impression of how much the other person enjoys the conversation.
Alternately, they say: “Uh, actually, I was enjoying that conversation. In particular, I was interested in the part where [stuff]. Maybe we could focus on talking about that part?” And then maybe you compromise on a conversational topic, rather than interpreting the rejection of the conversation as a rejection of you.
Or in the ideal case, “Oh, I wasn’t actually enjoying it either, I was just talking about it because I thought you still wanted to. Great, let’s change the subject.”
Yes. Getting good social feedback is valuable.
If the person says that you can reassure them that you generally like them as a person but that going down that particular argument to decide who’s right just doesn’t interest you.
There are arguments about who’s right that are unproductive and stopping them and explaining your reasoning to the other person can be valuable for a person with low social skills even if it hurts them a bit.
I rather prefer getting honest social feedback and not getting looked down upon to not knowing what I’m doing
wrong and getting looked down upon.
But it does depend on the culture in which things are said. There are situations where one can be open and other’s where it’s more difficult.
There might also be cases where the other person think the conversation has value and says: “Actually you making that argument is the first time I heard it, so even if you already made in ten times in the past, I’m really interested in understanding that argument better.”
That’s very useful information and hearing it might make the conversation a lot more fun for both participants.
The sentiment could be worded nicer, but it does achieve it’s ends.
The end is you getting out of a conversation that annoys you with total disregard for the other person’s feelings? Because the way shokwave phrased it is really incredibly blunt.
The end is you getting out of a conversation that annoys you with total disregard for the other person’s feelings? Because the way shokwave phrased it is really incredibly blunt.
There are plenty of unproductive discussions in rational circles where you can reasonably assume that the other person is arguing to win a debate and not because he finds a discussion interesting.
I think those discussion are situation where shokwave might say those words. In those cases they are spoken with the interest of the other person in mind.
Of course you can be wrong about that in your reading of the situation. If you pay attention to the other person you should notice when they have a meaningful emotional reactions to the words that you are saying.
In those cases you can readjust the emotional impact by telling them something nice about them and starting a new thread of discussion in the process.
While I personally wouldn’t be as blunt I have meet plenty of people who have no problem being that blunt while also doing enough to signal that they like the person they are interacting with to avoid harming them strongly.
Additionally I would personally prefer that if I’m walking around with body odor that someone would tell me, even if he would tell me in a way that produces a bit of temporary emotionally displeasure.
I would predict that a significant amount of people who are part of the rationalist community share that preference.
I like getting honest feedback from other people. If someone puts me in a state of deep emotional turmoil I think they are responsible to stay there and do what they can to fix it if they aren’t requested to leave. But to the extend that I do have control over myself I won’t look down on them for providing honest feedback.
It’s possible that it is too blunt. My instinct (calibrated on around half a hundred nights of conversation with Australian LessWrongers in person) says that it’s not, though.
To the latter, your interlocutor says (or likely, thinks to themselves):
“Uh, actually, I was rather enjoying that conversation. I thought it had value. But I guess I was wrong; it seems you do not find me interesting, or think that I am annoying. That hurts.”
Working as intended?
Actually when a person is hurt they might not be in a state of mind to phrase it like that. I know that I tend to focus on the feeling of being hurt first, and it is incredibly difficult to not react indirectly with defensiveness which would be directed at something other than “I guess you don’t find me interesting”, because that shows vulnerability. A person (like unreflected me) might instinctively attack in a different area to “retaliate” to what they felt was a surprise attack on their self-worth. I am working on this, but I doubt most people with this problem are.
Which should be kept in mind, I think: I agree with ChristianKI that open communication is preferable here, but in a situation where you create emotions in the other person they might find it impossible to stay rational even if their system 2 wants to.
Solution? I actually do like the idea of ending useless conversations very much. I would rephrase it less bluntly which reduces the confrontation. What bothers me about this one is definite statements, e.g. “We should stop”. It implies you expect the other person to have the same opinion as you, which isn’t in the spirit of Tell Culture.
Suggestion: “I got the feeling that this conversation is not really helping me right now. What is your impression on this? If you agree with me, perhaps we could switch topics?” (or offer to shift the conversation into a specific direction that you would enjoy)
Generally I would match the carefulness to my impression of how much the other person enjoys the conversation.
Alternately, they say: “Uh, actually, I was enjoying that conversation. In particular, I was interested in the part where [stuff]. Maybe we could focus on talking about that part?” And then maybe you compromise on a conversational topic, rather than interpreting the rejection of the conversation as a rejection of you.
Or in the ideal case, “Oh, I wasn’t actually enjoying it either, I was just talking about it because I thought you still wanted to. Great, let’s change the subject.”
Yes. Getting good social feedback is valuable. If the person says that you can reassure them that you generally like them as a person but that going down that particular argument to decide who’s right just doesn’t interest you.
There are arguments about who’s right that are unproductive and stopping them and explaining your reasoning to the other person can be valuable for a person with low social skills even if it hurts them a bit.
I rather prefer getting honest social feedback and not getting looked down upon to not knowing what I’m doing wrong and getting looked down upon.
But it does depend on the culture in which things are said. There are situations where one can be open and other’s where it’s more difficult.
There might also be cases where the other person think the conversation has value and says: “Actually you making that argument is the first time I heard it, so even if you already made in ten times in the past, I’m really interested in understanding that argument better.”
That’s very useful information and hearing it might make the conversation a lot more fun for both participants.
The sentiment could be worded nicer, but it does achieve it’s ends.
The end is you getting out of a conversation that annoys you with total disregard for the other person’s feelings? Because the way shokwave phrased it is really incredibly blunt.
There are plenty of unproductive discussions in rational circles where you can reasonably assume that the other person is arguing to win a debate and not because he finds a discussion interesting.
I think those discussion are situation where shokwave might say those words. In those cases they are spoken with the interest of the other person in mind.
Of course you can be wrong about that in your reading of the situation. If you pay attention to the other person you should notice when they have a meaningful emotional reactions to the words that you are saying.
In those cases you can readjust the emotional impact by telling them something nice about them and starting a new thread of discussion in the process.
While I personally wouldn’t be as blunt I have meet plenty of people who have no problem being that blunt while also doing enough to signal that they like the person they are interacting with to avoid harming them strongly.
Additionally I would personally prefer that if I’m walking around with body odor that someone would tell me, even if he would tell me in a way that produces a bit of temporary emotionally displeasure. I would predict that a significant amount of people who are part of the rationalist community share that preference.
I like getting honest feedback from other people. If someone puts me in a state of deep emotional turmoil I think they are responsible to stay there and do what they can to fix it if they aren’t requested to leave. But to the extend that I do have control over myself I won’t look down on them for providing honest feedback.
It’s possible that it is too blunt. My instinct (calibrated on around half a hundred nights of conversation with Australian LessWrongers in person) says that it’s not, though.