I have seen many things in many years, and I’m pretty sure I ‘grok the substance’ of the feminist complaints. The problem is twofold:
1) Feminists pattern match for feminist issues, so they sometimes find issues even where issues don’t actually exist, and
2) feminists have integrated feminism into their identity.
The end result is that even minor perceived issues can directly affect their identity, resulting in offense. It is not a good combination, making discourse difficult and littering the discussion landscape with hot-button triggers. It’s a common political pattern—similar logic holds for many different ‘righteous belief’ systems.
Regarding your comment, “We can enjoy problematic things even while acknowledging they’re problematic.”, I personally feel that’s more than a little unfair. In this case at least, the audience that finds it problematic is at best a vocal minority.
Perhaps “We can enjoy things that some people find problematic, while acknowledging that those people find those things problematic.” While a less potent soundbite, I find it more appropriate.
Or perhaps even, “Some people will always find certain things problematic. That doesn’t mean that it’s anybody else’s problem.”
they sometimes find issues even where issues don’t actually exist
Issues are subjective. Something that’s not an issue for you can still be an issue for someone else.
For example, you have a problem with thakil’s phrasing and have offered a “corrected” version. However, you’ve destroyed the point of thakil’s sentence, which is that it’s possible that ((Person A finds X enjoyable) AND (Person A finds X problematic)). I know from direct experience that this is true; I have been Person A in that situation.
If you have not personally been in that situation, it doesn’t follow that another person has not, nor that they are somehow being “unfair”.
Well quite. When I call this something problematic that can be still enjoyed, I find it problematic and still enjoy it!
With regards to whether an issue exists or not.. I mean if readers can perceive it, then it exists. Eliezer can decide that the story he’s going to tell is just going to alienate those readers, or perhaps he can make adjustments now or in future to avoid that. My minor concern is that in some of his responses I don’t feel like he has quire grasped the substance of the complaints: the problems exist, and trying to argue that they do not is probably a hiding to nothing.
With regards to whether an issue exists or not.. I mean if readers can perceive it, then it exists.
How certain are you of this?
If told that a particular tune is present, a significant fraction of people will report that they can hear the tune when presented with recordings of white noise.
If told that a pattern is present, a significant fraction of people will find a pattern in a random distribution of points. (Constellations, for example.)
Indeed. When we are talking about facts about reality, then these kind of things become a problem. When we are talking about people’s critical response to the text, then if someone has that response to a text, then its there for them at least. If multiple people do, then we can argue that
a-there’s something about the text which causes this reaction in a subgroup of people
b-this subgroup of people would have this reaction to every single text.
I assign b a lower probability because this is a reaction borne of particular chapters rather than the entire novel.
This could be an interesting way to measure mindkilling. Get people from different groups, let them hear white noise or see random points and ask them to report how often they hear/see messages offensive to their groups. (For example how often a fundamentalist religious person would hear/see indecent or satanic messages.)
Are we talking about whether or not a measurable phenomenon exists, though? I thought we were talking about a completely subjective kind of thing. You can control for whether or not people are judging levels of sound or patterns or physical comfort inaccurately due to some bias, but is there even such a thing as judging their own emotional reactions inaccurately due to some bias?
I don’t think that it’s judging their own emotional reactions inaccurately due to some bias so much as it is perceiving information in a matter that it results in an unwarranted emotional reaction due to some bias.
A persecution complex is the standard example, I believe. If one is predisposed to believe that they are being attacked, then one sees it everywhere—sometimes they are noticing something real that is subtle enough that others don’t pick it up, and sometimes they are (essentially) selectively interpreting the information to back up their preconceived notions.
I get something like that on an airplane or bus every once in a while. I usually spend about a minute trying to exert some control over the process, but I’ve yet to internally locate the on/off switch for that version of it. (it’s not a normal ear-wig, which can be defused by forcibly thinking of a different arbitrary song; it’s confined to what may or may not be the harmonics of the vehicle I’m on.)
Understood. I had not taken that meaning. In this particular case, I enjoy the work and do not find it problematic, but I acknowledge that other people may find it problematic, in the same way that I acknowledge that other people think vaccines cause autism and that homeopathic medicines work.
I have seen many things in many years, and I’m pretty sure I ‘grok the substance’ of the feminist complaints. The problem is twofold:
1) Feminists pattern match for feminist issues, so they sometimes find issues even where issues don’t actually exist, and
2) feminists have integrated feminism into their identity.
The end result is that even minor perceived issues can directly affect their identity, resulting in offense. It is not a good combination, making discourse difficult and littering the discussion landscape with hot-button triggers. It’s a common political pattern—similar logic holds for many different ‘righteous belief’ systems.
Regarding your comment, “We can enjoy problematic things even while acknowledging they’re problematic.”, I personally feel that’s more than a little unfair. In this case at least, the audience that finds it problematic is at best a vocal minority.
Perhaps “We can enjoy things that some people find problematic, while acknowledging that those people find those things problematic.” While a less potent soundbite, I find it more appropriate.
Or perhaps even, “Some people will always find certain things problematic. That doesn’t mean that it’s anybody else’s problem.”
Issues are subjective. Something that’s not an issue for you can still be an issue for someone else.
For example, you have a problem with thakil’s phrasing and have offered a “corrected” version. However, you’ve destroyed the point of thakil’s sentence, which is that it’s possible that ((Person A finds X enjoyable) AND (Person A finds X problematic)). I know from direct experience that this is true; I have been Person A in that situation.
If you have not personally been in that situation, it doesn’t follow that another person has not, nor that they are somehow being “unfair”.
Well quite. When I call this something problematic that can be still enjoyed, I find it problematic and still enjoy it!
With regards to whether an issue exists or not.. I mean if readers can perceive it, then it exists. Eliezer can decide that the story he’s going to tell is just going to alienate those readers, or perhaps he can make adjustments now or in future to avoid that. My minor concern is that in some of his responses I don’t feel like he has quire grasped the substance of the complaints: the problems exist, and trying to argue that they do not is probably a hiding to nothing.
How certain are you of this?
If told that a particular tune is present, a significant fraction of people will report that they can hear the tune when presented with recordings of white noise.
If told that a pattern is present, a significant fraction of people will find a pattern in a random distribution of points. (Constellations, for example.)
Indeed. When we are talking about facts about reality, then these kind of things become a problem. When we are talking about people’s critical response to the text, then if someone has that response to a text, then its there for them at least. If multiple people do, then we can argue that
a-there’s something about the text which causes this reaction in a subgroup of people b-this subgroup of people would have this reaction to every single text.
I assign b a lower probability because this is a reaction borne of particular chapters rather than the entire novel.
This could be an interesting way to measure mindkilling. Get people from different groups, let them hear white noise or see random points and ask them to report how often they hear/see messages offensive to their groups. (For example how often a fundamentalist religious person would hear/see indecent or satanic messages.)
Are we talking about whether or not a measurable phenomenon exists, though? I thought we were talking about a completely subjective kind of thing. You can control for whether or not people are judging levels of sound or patterns or physical comfort inaccurately due to some bias, but is there even such a thing as judging their own emotional reactions inaccurately due to some bias?
I don’t think that it’s judging their own emotional reactions inaccurately due to some bias so much as it is perceiving information in a matter that it results in an unwarranted emotional reaction due to some bias.
A persecution complex is the standard example, I believe. If one is predisposed to believe that they are being attacked, then one sees it everywhere—sometimes they are noticing something real that is subtle enough that others don’t pick it up, and sometimes they are (essentially) selectively interpreting the information to back up their preconceived notions.
I get something like that on an airplane or bus every once in a while. I usually spend about a minute trying to exert some control over the process, but I’ve yet to internally locate the on/off switch for that version of it. (it’s not a normal ear-wig, which can be defused by forcibly thinking of a different arbitrary song; it’s confined to what may or may not be the harmonics of the vehicle I’m on.)
Then it is an issue for them.
Projecting the problem outwards is just that—seeing the problem where the problem isn’t
Understood. I had not taken that meaning. In this particular case, I enjoy the work and do not find it problematic, but I acknowledge that other people may find it problematic, in the same way that I acknowledge that other people think vaccines cause autism and that homeopathic medicines work.