2) The whole sentiment of “I will calculate your love for me” is attached to a cluster of non-attractive features that probably get binned as “creepy”. No, this isn’t right. No, this isn’t fair.
Maybe it’s even right. It’s behavior that makes people uncomfortable. I don’t see a reason why people shouldn’t shun you for making them uncomfortable.
I’d argue it’s behavior that -should- make people uncomfortable. “-I- will calculate -your- love for -me-”, as a thought somebody might express, screams “predator” in my brain. Anybody for whom this is a natural approach to other people doesn’t see other people as complex minds, but as collections of variables. Variables that are quite easy to shift and adjust if they possess even relatively poor manipulative abilities.
Well, yes. But phrasing matters. The choice of one word over another reveals something of the thought processes underlying the statement. Calculation implies something to be calculated, something that can be calculated, numbers that can be nudged this way or that.
More, anybody -capable- of reducing the complexity of somebody else’s mind to simple equations is in a position of intellectual dominance over them, a mind of a greater order of magnitude; in order for a mind to be calculable, it can’t be reflective. Calculating somebody else’s mind requires that they not be able to calculate the fact that you’re calculating them, not be able to reflect what’s going on in your mind, even as you are able to reflect what is going on in theirs. This, by its nature, is not going to be an equal relationship. In the context of saying it to somebody, you’re telling them that you are in a position of considerable power over them. In the context of saying it to somebody whose affections are unknown, this statement of power becomes a threat. “You don’t love me now, but I can -make- you love me, because I know what all the numbers are and where to find them and what they mean.”
hm, yes, what you say sounds right. There surely are more powerful minds than others. People who can model others better than vice versa. And this brings power. But this a) doesn’t depend on being communicated (and the OP didn’t indicate whether it was meant to be communicated) and b) may also come from experience (more likely so as I read all these comments here).
What you seem to imply is that the OP accidentally or not would (want to) intimidate. And I can’t read that.
Surely one should never signal ‘I can control you’ to anybody—whether it be true or not. But that is not at issue here, or?
And then there is the question of whether it would be preferrable to have as a partner someone who is a match at this. Who would understand you when you think analytically about people.
It is an issue. There’s heavy overlap between analytical approaches to regarding other human beings and psychopathy. That’s what the “creepy” signal, in part, is signaling. It’s “creepy” in a there’s-a-spider-wearing-a-human-face-looking-at-me sense—human beings don’t do that kind of thing, thus, you can’t be a human being. As a rule, you don’t want to communicate that you’re not a human being. There are… severe social recriminations for doing so.
Intimidating somebody on those grounds is like having the spider pull its human face off and stare at you with mandibles clicking. It’s no longer concerned with looking human; you’re now food. So no, it’s not something you want to do, in any case, including when looking for other “spiders wearing human faces”. If you’re merely analytical, you’re sending the wrong signals.
If you think about other human beings analytically, and want to signal that to find other people who think about other human beings analytically, there are socially safer signals to use. Cynicism, for example.
There’s heavy overlap between analytical approaches to regarding other human beings and psychopathy.
Not sure how true this is. It’s a trope, to be sure, thanks partly to Hannibal Lecter and his various imitators. But I haven’t seen much in the wild to show that analytical thinking about other people is well correlated even with basic lack of empathy towards them, let alone full-blown psychopathy.
(Lack of sympathy, sure, but that points towards a cluster of personalities more in the neighborhood of autism or Asperger syndrome. Perhaps what’s going on in pop culture is some sort of outgroup homogeneity/all-weird-people-are-equal effect.)
Empathy is basically about engaging in actions because you feel an emotional impulse to engage in the action.
The person who can push the fat man from the bridge needs to shut of their empathy to do so.
Psychopaths are generally charming and manipulative. “Hannibal” is probably closer to a true psychopath than the “I will calculate your love for me” concept, because Hannibal doesn’t -need- to calculate, he already knows; he’s read it in your body language. Knowing what you’re thinking is what -enables- him to be charming and manipulative.
It’s important to distinguish that psychopaths aren’t necessarily analytic, they just share the most dangerous qualities in common with analytic people—the ability to tell, at a glance, that a man used to be fat, and a subtle suggestion that he’s letting himself go will result in an emotional breakdown later that evening.
I wonder if psychopaths are actually charming and manipulative in general, or if this is survivorship bias; any psychopaths that aren’t would get immediately caught and destroyed, either literally or figuratively.
In our society we have few lynch mobs that kill psychopaths.
To the extend that we succeed in catching psychopaths, those people that get caught are the basis for psychologists who study the traits of psychopaths.
Consider what’s going to happen to a psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative. He’s going to try to take advantage of people, but without the traits that make him able to do so successfully, he’s going to constantly get caught doing it, fail, and burn through all his social capital. Constantly trying to take advantage of people and failing has a good chance of leaving you dead, in jail, in poverty, or homeless.
You may be right in the sense that nobody diagnoses him with psychopathy, but being caught doing bad things without a diagnosis is still being caught doing bad things, and still has a pretty negative effect.
The best he’s going to be able to do is recognize that he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of people and not do it, in which case he’ll be mostly indistinguishable from a normal person.
You seem to be assuming a particularly stupid psychopath, one who doesn’t realize in which way he is different from neurotypicals.
Let me offer you some alternatives. A “psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative” can enlist into the armed forces (or become a prison guard, a cop, etc.). He can lead an entirely normal life faking socially-acceptable amount of interaction and be considered just an introvert. He can become an extremist for a cause.
Constantly trying to take advantage of people and failing has a good chance of leaving you dead, in jail, in poverty, or homeless.
Studying psychopaths who are in prison is easier for psychologists than studying psychopaths who aren’t in prison.
Being in prison doesn’t get one out of the reference category but more likely to be in the reference category.
The best he’s going to be able to do is recognize that he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of people and not do it, in which case he’ll be mostly indistinguishable from a normal person.
If you go throw the Hare checklist, how many of the points only apply when a person actively tries to take advantage of others? Maybe the point about “Cunning/manipulative” and “Parasitic lifestyle” but most of the items don’t.
It seems to me that you argue against a concept of psychopathy that doesn’t have much to do with it’s clinical definition.
If you go throw the Hare checklist, how many of the points only apply when a person actively tries to take advantage of others?
Of course you are correct. So change that to “The best he’s going to do is hide it, because he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of it and not hiding it will get him into trouble.”
I assume ‘you’ refers to any reader. To be sure, just for the record: I do think analytically about everything—including people. But I’m not very good at putting myself into other peoples shoes, so I have difficulty modelling them. Thus my analysis of individuals is probably not better then most peoples modelling by experience. But one can still analyse peoples behaviors on average—and that is what I do and what I immediately (mis)read from the OP. How do people react on average? What can I expect over the long run. I do empathize strongly just in case you are wondering. So no, I’m no spider wearing a human face.
If you think about other human beings analytically, and want to signal that to find other people who think about other human beings analytically, there are socially safer signals to use. Cynicism, for example.
That is actually a good recommendation. It doesn’t help me because I can’t stand the negativity but it gives ideas how to signal. Comments about politics probably also count. Or meta comments about social activity in general. Do you have any positive examples?
You’re interested in more than a partner who thinks analytically—they have to be reasonably optimistic, as well. So comments about optimistic philosophies might work; Leibniz, maybe. “Progressive” ideologies are generally fairly optimistic, so politically, you’d want to talk about, say, John Dewey, Ralph Nader, Lester Ward, etc. Nietschze is a mixed bag; his early stuff is quite pessimistic, but his latter works are much more optimistic.
Alternatively, you can find correlations. My experience suggests you might find exactly what you’re looking for in Swing dancing partners.
Most people do feel emotions when they wonder whether or not another person loves them and those emotions affect behavior. If you try to do a calculation you push those emotions away, you try to let the numbers instead of your emotions affect your behavior.
Indeed. Or more precisely I try to inform my emotions with the numbers. But yes, the first impulse is to really understand what is going on before feeling what that means. And this gap is felt by the other side how wellmeaning it may be. But on the other hand it avoids the other way around: Being manipulated by spontaneous expression of emotions.
It seems to me that this discomfort is not a necessary product of the behavior. It may even be a cognitive bias, on the order of thinking that unconditional love is more powerful than conditional love. I submit that a rationalist should expect his or her prospective partners to “calculate their love” and not be afraid of the results.
Your statement has a nice “should” in it. The reason for people not to shun you is because their discomfort is based on a (debatably) flawed heuristic.
In many cases, discomfort is a natural part of changing one’s mind. I can see, though, why romance would be an exception. Discomfort due to unrequited affections, for example, is not evidence of an impending paradigm shift. Discomfort due to a rational calculus, however, might indicate a high likelihood of irrationality.
No, it has shouldn’t in it. Shouldn’t is the negation of should.
It seems to me that this discomfort is not a necessary product of the behavior.
It seems to me that way. I did have a reference experience with a Grinberg teacher who could switch that mode of anxiety on and off by conscious decision.
She demonstrated it during a talk and it felt uncomfortable to me. I though to myself: “You made your point, it feels uncomfortable, can you now move on?”. She has more physical presence than people who are shy by their nature.
Yet that’s a matter of degree. By interacting with people who do provide honest feedback I discover that I sometimes do make people uncomfortable by being in analytical mode.
I think that if you have a nerd with bad body odor it’s mostly that he feels uncomfortable with social interactions to the extends that his body produces substances to get other people to keep distance.
Discomfort due to unrequited affections
Why would you make a girl feel that with whom you would want a relationship to the extend that you are interested enough in her to ask her out?
If a girl does flirty to make you smile and instead of smiling you go in your head and think about whether or not that signal means that she likes you, you don’t make the interaction fun for her.
I’m looking at the possible causal relationships between certain actions and resultant discomfort. As I understand your argument, you believe that certain actions by one person will always result in discomfort by the other. I disagree, and I submit that the discomfort is a product of the original action and its response. In other words, if someone has made you feel uncomfortable, it may be possible for you to reduce that discomfort independently of the precipitating action. Your discomfort may be due to an irrational bias. This would be a reason not to shun someone for making you feel uncomfortable.
There is a difference between analyzing an action and communicating that you are analyzing an action. To speak to your concluding example, “smiling back” and, “[going] in your head and think about whether or not that signal means that she likes you,” are NOT mutually exclusive. With practice, you can do both at once. I would call this leveling up.
Maybe it’s even right. It’s behavior that makes people uncomfortable. I don’t see a reason why people shouldn’t shun you for making them uncomfortable.
I’d argue it’s behavior that -should- make people uncomfortable. “-I- will calculate -your- love for -me-”, as a thought somebody might express, screams “predator” in my brain. Anybody for whom this is a natural approach to other people doesn’t see other people as complex minds, but as collections of variables. Variables that are quite easy to shift and adjust if they possess even relatively poor manipulative abilities.
That seems to be the phrasing.
“I wonder whether he loves me” sounds quite natural and expresses the same uncertainty.
Well, yes. But phrasing matters. The choice of one word over another reveals something of the thought processes underlying the statement. Calculation implies something to be calculated, something that can be calculated, numbers that can be nudged this way or that.
More, anybody -capable- of reducing the complexity of somebody else’s mind to simple equations is in a position of intellectual dominance over them, a mind of a greater order of magnitude; in order for a mind to be calculable, it can’t be reflective. Calculating somebody else’s mind requires that they not be able to calculate the fact that you’re calculating them, not be able to reflect what’s going on in your mind, even as you are able to reflect what is going on in theirs. This, by its nature, is not going to be an equal relationship. In the context of saying it to somebody, you’re telling them that you are in a position of considerable power over them. In the context of saying it to somebody whose affections are unknown, this statement of power becomes a threat. “You don’t love me now, but I can -make- you love me, because I know what all the numbers are and where to find them and what they mean.”
hm, yes, what you say sounds right. There surely are more powerful minds than others. People who can model others better than vice versa. And this brings power. But this a) doesn’t depend on being communicated (and the OP didn’t indicate whether it was meant to be communicated) and b) may also come from experience (more likely so as I read all these comments here).
What you seem to imply is that the OP accidentally or not would (want to) intimidate. And I can’t read that. Surely one should never signal ‘I can control you’ to anybody—whether it be true or not. But that is not at issue here, or?
And then there is the question of whether it would be preferrable to have as a partner someone who is a match at this. Who would understand you when you think analytically about people.
It is an issue. There’s heavy overlap between analytical approaches to regarding other human beings and psychopathy. That’s what the “creepy” signal, in part, is signaling. It’s “creepy” in a there’s-a-spider-wearing-a-human-face-looking-at-me sense—human beings don’t do that kind of thing, thus, you can’t be a human being. As a rule, you don’t want to communicate that you’re not a human being. There are… severe social recriminations for doing so.
Intimidating somebody on those grounds is like having the spider pull its human face off and stare at you with mandibles clicking. It’s no longer concerned with looking human; you’re now food. So no, it’s not something you want to do, in any case, including when looking for other “spiders wearing human faces”. If you’re merely analytical, you’re sending the wrong signals.
If you think about other human beings analytically, and want to signal that to find other people who think about other human beings analytically, there are socially safer signals to use. Cynicism, for example.
Not sure how true this is. It’s a trope, to be sure, thanks partly to Hannibal Lecter and his various imitators. But I haven’t seen much in the wild to show that analytical thinking about other people is well correlated even with basic lack of empathy towards them, let alone full-blown psychopathy.
(Lack of sympathy, sure, but that points towards a cluster of personalities more in the neighborhood of autism or Asperger syndrome. Perhaps what’s going on in pop culture is some sort of outgroup homogeneity/all-weird-people-are-equal effect.)
Empathy is basically about engaging in actions because you feel an emotional impulse to engage in the action. The person who can push the fat man from the bridge needs to shut of their empathy to do so.
Psychopaths are generally charming and manipulative. “Hannibal” is probably closer to a true psychopath than the “I will calculate your love for me” concept, because Hannibal doesn’t -need- to calculate, he already knows; he’s read it in your body language. Knowing what you’re thinking is what -enables- him to be charming and manipulative.
It’s important to distinguish that psychopaths aren’t necessarily analytic, they just share the most dangerous qualities in common with analytic people—the ability to tell, at a glance, that a man used to be fat, and a subtle suggestion that he’s letting himself go will result in an emotional breakdown later that evening.
I wonder if psychopaths are actually charming and manipulative in general, or if this is survivorship bias; any psychopaths that aren’t would get immediately caught and destroyed, either literally or figuratively.
In our society we have few lynch mobs that kill psychopaths.
To the extend that we succeed in catching psychopaths, those people that get caught are the basis for psychologists who study the traits of psychopaths.
Consider what’s going to happen to a psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative. He’s going to try to take advantage of people, but without the traits that make him able to do so successfully, he’s going to constantly get caught doing it, fail, and burn through all his social capital. Constantly trying to take advantage of people and failing has a good chance of leaving you dead, in jail, in poverty, or homeless.
You may be right in the sense that nobody diagnoses him with psychopathy, but being caught doing bad things without a diagnosis is still being caught doing bad things, and still has a pretty negative effect.
The best he’s going to be able to do is recognize that he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of people and not do it, in which case he’ll be mostly indistinguishable from a normal person.
You seem to be assuming a particularly stupid psychopath, one who doesn’t realize in which way he is different from neurotypicals.
Let me offer you some alternatives. A “psychopath who isn’t charming and manipulative” can enlist into the armed forces (or become a prison guard, a cop, etc.). He can lead an entirely normal life faking socially-acceptable amount of interaction and be considered just an introvert. He can become an extremist for a cause.
Studying psychopaths who are in prison is easier for psychologists than studying psychopaths who aren’t in prison. Being in prison doesn’t get one out of the reference category but more likely to be in the reference category.
If you go throw the Hare checklist, how many of the points only apply when a person actively tries to take advantage of others? Maybe the point about “Cunning/manipulative” and “Parasitic lifestyle” but most of the items don’t.
It seems to me that you argue against a concept of psychopathy that doesn’t have much to do with it’s clinical definition.
Of course you are correct. So change that to “The best he’s going to do is hide it, because he doesn’t have the skills to take advantage of it and not hiding it will get him into trouble.”
I assume ‘you’ refers to any reader. To be sure, just for the record: I do think analytically about everything—including people. But I’m not very good at putting myself into other peoples shoes, so I have difficulty modelling them. Thus my analysis of individuals is probably not better then most peoples modelling by experience. But one can still analyse peoples behaviors on average—and that is what I do and what I immediately (mis)read from the OP. How do people react on average? What can I expect over the long run. I do empathize strongly just in case you are wondering. So no, I’m no spider wearing a human face.
That is actually a good recommendation. It doesn’t help me because I can’t stand the negativity but it gives ideas how to signal. Comments about politics probably also count. Or meta comments about social activity in general. Do you have any positive examples?
You’re interested in more than a partner who thinks analytically—they have to be reasonably optimistic, as well. So comments about optimistic philosophies might work; Leibniz, maybe. “Progressive” ideologies are generally fairly optimistic, so politically, you’d want to talk about, say, John Dewey, Ralph Nader, Lester Ward, etc. Nietschze is a mixed bag; his early stuff is quite pessimistic, but his latter works are much more optimistic.
Alternatively, you can find correlations. My experience suggests you might find exactly what you’re looking for in Swing dancing partners.
Thank you very much!
Most people do feel emotions when they wonder whether or not another person loves them and those emotions affect behavior. If you try to do a calculation you push those emotions away, you try to let the numbers instead of your emotions affect your behavior.
Indeed. Or more precisely I try to inform my emotions with the numbers. But yes, the first impulse is to really understand what is going on before feeling what that means. And this gap is felt by the other side how wellmeaning it may be. But on the other hand it avoids the other way around: Being manipulated by spontaneous expression of emotions.
It seems to me that this discomfort is not a necessary product of the behavior. It may even be a cognitive bias, on the order of thinking that unconditional love is more powerful than conditional love. I submit that a rationalist should expect his or her prospective partners to “calculate their love” and not be afraid of the results.
Your statement has a nice “should” in it. The reason for people not to shun you is because their discomfort is based on a (debatably) flawed heuristic.
In many cases, discomfort is a natural part of changing one’s mind. I can see, though, why romance would be an exception. Discomfort due to unrequited affections, for example, is not evidence of an impending paradigm shift. Discomfort due to a rational calculus, however, might indicate a high likelihood of irrationality.
No, it has shouldn’t in it. Shouldn’t is the negation of should.
It seems to me that way. I did have a reference experience with a Grinberg teacher who could switch that mode of anxiety on and off by conscious decision. She demonstrated it during a talk and it felt uncomfortable to me. I though to myself: “You made your point, it feels uncomfortable, can you now move on?”. She has more physical presence than people who are shy by their nature.
Yet that’s a matter of degree. By interacting with people who do provide honest feedback I discover that I sometimes do make people uncomfortable by being in analytical mode.
I think that if you have a nerd with bad body odor it’s mostly that he feels uncomfortable with social interactions to the extends that his body produces substances to get other people to keep distance.
Why would you make a girl feel that with whom you would want a relationship to the extend that you are interested enough in her to ask her out?
If a girl does flirty to make you smile and instead of smiling you go in your head and think about whether or not that signal means that she likes you, you don’t make the interaction fun for her.
I’m looking at the possible causal relationships between certain actions and resultant discomfort. As I understand your argument, you believe that certain actions by one person will always result in discomfort by the other. I disagree, and I submit that the discomfort is a product of the original action and its response. In other words, if someone has made you feel uncomfortable, it may be possible for you to reduce that discomfort independently of the precipitating action. Your discomfort may be due to an irrational bias. This would be a reason not to shun someone for making you feel uncomfortable.
There is a difference between analyzing an action and communicating that you are analyzing an action. To speak to your concluding example, “smiling back” and, “[going] in your head and think about whether or not that signal means that she likes you,” are NOT mutually exclusive. With practice, you can do both at once. I would call this leveling up.