site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   3469 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 10, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://old.reddit.com/r/196/comments/1bb3kpz/rule/

What do you think of that model of social interactions? It says it's a model of autism, but I think it works for people in general. Most people are always trying to elevate their status, or at least prevent is from dropping. They may accept the friendship of people one step below them, but almost never two steps. Creating awkward situations when someone one step below them befriends someone who is one more step below them.

Personally, I find I've mostly withdrawn from the game and enjoy my time by myself. I'm comfortable that I'm close enough with coworkers and other acquaintances I have a little bit of an emergency network, but otherwise I enjoy spending most of my time alone.

I think that the kind of ""autism"" that shows up in very-smart-people isn't autism at all, it's (even if "unconscious" or unexamined or explicitly believed to be otherwise or learned-over-time-and-burned-into-instincts) an intentional rejection of some or many 'normal' social games because they're judged to be bad, counterproductive, stupid. This is very different from the kind of "autism" that's a neurodevelopmental disorder.

I'm not really claiming that said autists are better. The actions taken as a result of said "autism" are not uniformly good, or better than alternatives - being able to participate in the 'normal' stuff is both instrumentally useful and useful as a way to pick out the parts of the bad-social-thing that are in fact good. And if everyone's playing a game, even if the game is 'bad' in a broad sense it might still be a local optimum to go along with it, and if the rejection is unconscious or unexamined it might (and often does) lead to outcomes worse than not rejecting the thing in the first place.

But, like, the fact that a lot of very smart people and contrarian / independent thinkers seem to have an issue that makes them have trouble with social interaction is quite odd, because 'social interaction' isn't something removed from causality, it is something one could understand even without all the relevant instincts, and very smart people should be well placed to do it. So it's more likely that they, in some sense, don't want to understand it.

Most people are always trying to elevate their status, or at least prevent is from dropping. They may accept the friendship of people one step below them, but almost never two steps

It's not just 'status'. If humans didn't have 'status hierarchies', we'd re-invent something related purely out of, i guess, 'instrumental convergence'. Some people are just more ... some of useful, funnier, better connected, hotter. (there's a correlation between individual but it isn't that large). The reason I don't want to be friends with the people several-levels-below me is, mostly, that I find interacting with them to be relatively less fun, productive, (...) than interacting with my current level. And people several above me make the same judgement. And if there's someone several-levels-below me that I would get something out of interacting with, I (maybe moreso than others, but it's not rare) do it! And you can see this as 'raising that person's status a little' too, I guess.

Personally, I find I've mostly withdrawn from the game and enjoy my time by myself

Again, just instrumentally this is suboptimal IMO. Even if all I want to do is code, I'll be a better coder if I read all the latest blogs, talk with people who do similar things. I'll get opportunities to work with other competent people, either for free or for pay.

There are obviously a bunch of pathologies in social interaction that the above doesn't address, and that cause the supposed autist at the beginning to disconnect, but i've already typed too much. But I don't think it's a reason to reject 'interacting with people' in general. Plus, there are a lot of subcultures that interact in different ways. You could try befriending people more similar to you on the internet, I suppose, it's in some ways comparable to IRL and at any rate better than nothing. Discord and twitter are apparently very good for that.

@bfslndr @curious_straight_ca Guys I figured it out, it's the old reddit link conversion. Just copy+paste 'reddit.com/r/196/s/Qimfce7wOf' into your URL bar.

As for the link, one of my favorite genres of internet content is "Smart autists derive social rules even social butterflies don't know except on an instinctual level". Yes, friend groups are status alliances, and you endanger your own position by trying to bring a low value add into the mix. Never read Diary of a Wimpy Kid though, can't say whether the character descriptions are accurate.

There's something wrong with the link.

Thanks, fixed now

That link doesn't work for me

Thanks, fixed now

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats