I have often answered this question by actually talking about things that have been going on in my life lately, and that pretty much always goes well. And I don’t even think answering “Horribly!” would cause serious negative consequences (e.g. scapegoating). Maybe this is partially due to my privilege level, but I just don’t see what is so bad about answering the question honestly, if you are already pretty committed to being unusually honest.
It definitely looks like privilege to me. Almost all the time I am asked this question, the kinds of things that are bothering me in my life are not the kinds of things that it is OK to talk about.
Update: I moved to Berkeley last week and noticed a huge difference in how the rationalist/EA community deals with these sorts of conversations and how the rest of the world does. Yesterday I was talking to someone I had barely met and they asked “how are you doing?” I said “you just opened a whole can of worms” and we ended up having an interesting discussion, including about how the conversational norms are different here from elsewhere. In general, I think people in this community are both more likely to give an honest answer to such questions, and less likely to ask them if they aren’t interested in an honest answer.
In general, I think people in this community are both more likely to give an honest answer to such questions, and less likely to ask them if they aren’t interested in an honest answer.
I have noticed this myself, in my interactions with rationalist communities. In my experience, the latter fact (“less likely to ask … if they aren’t interested in an honest answer”) makes rationalist gatherings/spaces feel a lot less welcoming and friendly than their “normal-person” analogues. (This is part of a general trend of failing to perform politeness norms—either due to ignorance thereof, or active refusal, or some combination of both causes. It is quite unfortunate, and makes participation in rationalist gatherings/spaces a less pleasant experience than I wish it were.)
(And, of course, the former fact—“more likely to give an honest answer to such questions”—make it more difficult to interact with rationalist-type folks for other reasons, which have been discussed elsethread.)
Yeah, there are definitely both upsides and downsides. It certainly makes me feel more welcome, though I can see that many people would have the opposite experience. Maybe the important thing is that people know what they are getting into.
It’s worth noting: I fall pretty cleanly in the “smalltalk is a useful skill and social lubrication ritual” camp, and I think it’s pretty achievable to get the best of both worlds here.
The exchange “how are you” --> “you just opened up a whole can of worms” --> [Whatever Comes Next] is actually pretty reasonable. Person A showcases that they’re at least somewhat interested in interacting. Person B makes a bid for “I’d like to have a bit of a heart-to-heart as opposed to a low-key-professional-interaction”. Person A now has the ability to say either:
“Oh, I’m happy to open up a can of worms”,
or,
“Oh man, hope you’re okay. [ “I’m not sure I can dive into that right now” / “I have to get going in a few minutes but interested in the medium-version if that exists” / etc]
This seems pretty close to how SmallTalkAsSocialRitual is supposed to work, with the main difference between rationalist and typical-society versions being that the Regular Society version would replace some of the direct-question-ness with subtler facial expressions.
It definitely looks like privilege to me. Almost all the time I am asked this question, the kinds of things that are bothering me in my life are not the kinds of things that it is OK to talk about.
Update: I moved to Berkeley last week and noticed a huge difference in how the rationalist/EA community deals with these sorts of conversations and how the rest of the world does. Yesterday I was talking to someone I had barely met and they asked “how are you doing?” I said “you just opened a whole can of worms” and we ended up having an interesting discussion, including about how the conversational norms are different here from elsewhere. In general, I think people in this community are both more likely to give an honest answer to such questions, and less likely to ask them if they aren’t interested in an honest answer.
I have noticed this myself, in my interactions with rationalist communities. In my experience, the latter fact (“less likely to ask … if they aren’t interested in an honest answer”) makes rationalist gatherings/spaces feel a lot less welcoming and friendly than their “normal-person” analogues. (This is part of a general trend of failing to perform politeness norms—either due to ignorance thereof, or active refusal, or some combination of both causes. It is quite unfortunate, and makes participation in rationalist gatherings/spaces a less pleasant experience than I wish it were.)
(And, of course, the former fact—“more likely to give an honest answer to such questions”—make it more difficult to interact with rationalist-type folks for other reasons, which have been discussed elsethread.)
Yeah, there are definitely both upsides and downsides. It certainly makes me feel more welcome, though I can see that many people would have the opposite experience. Maybe the important thing is that people know what they are getting into.
It’s worth noting: I fall pretty cleanly in the “smalltalk is a useful skill and social lubrication ritual” camp, and I think it’s pretty achievable to get the best of both worlds here.
The exchange “how are you” --> “you just opened up a whole can of worms” --> [Whatever Comes Next] is actually pretty reasonable. Person A showcases that they’re at least somewhat interested in interacting. Person B makes a bid for “I’d like to have a bit of a heart-to-heart as opposed to a low-key-professional-interaction”. Person A now has the ability to say either:
“Oh, I’m happy to open up a can of worms”,
or,
“Oh man, hope you’re okay. [ “I’m not sure I can dive into that right now” / “I have to get going in a few minutes but interested in the medium-version if that exists” / etc]
This seems pretty close to how SmallTalkAsSocialRitual is supposed to work, with the main difference between rationalist and typical-society versions being that the Regular Society version would replace some of the direct-question-ness with subtler facial expressions.