Contra the preference cascade point: I think biting your tongue on particularly spicy issues is both very understandable and often socially savvy (weirdness points and all, being a good hang), and if you stigmatize jumping on the preference cascade bandwagon, you might just lock in the false preference.
A better operationalization IMO would be dropping the stick in favor of carrots when people express presently-unpopular opinions (thoughtfully and in good faith). The proper social policy solution, for this issue at least, is toasting-not-roasting (which is also more pleasant to be a part of!)
It's always nice to a bit of Andy's sharpness and humour in my feed, thank you for writing this <3
The one of these I most encounter in social situations is "Implying that the whole world is designed to be a challenge to you specifically." In the way I see it show up, I attribute it more to insecurity rather than too much time online (not mutually exclusive ofc).
I see this play out in social settings like person A says "I play piano" or "I speak Russian" and person B is overly impressed and goes on to give long explanations about why they never learned a musical instrument or another language and how impressed they are by person A and how obviously inferior they are. Person A looks super uncomfortable and attempts some sort of comforting of person B, and the conversation eventually fizzles out.
My model of what's going on for person B in that situation is that the insecurity they're feeling inside is so strong that it's taking all their bandwidth, forcing an external response. None of their bandwith is available for considering how person A feels or what an interesting question or connective bit of conversation they might offer to the group. Interested if you would read this in the same way? Very possible that I am just projecting based on times I have been Person B in the past.
Yeah relate to this a lot and I tend to assume that's what's happening too! If I can ease the tension Person B steps out of that mode a lot. I sometimes meet people who actually do seem to just have very bad theories of mind, but I try to give Person Bs the benefit of the doubt. Thanks so much for the kind words Catherine!
I kind of go into a mode where I'm projecting "I'm patiently waiting for you to get out what you need to, and then we can talk and it'll be nice" and that's had a little success
I totally agree regarding this being the most frequent. Often notice the counter when you meet someone who absolutely has to justify why they didn't do said thing (e.g. "I never learned to speak Russian *because I didn't see the point*.") There's this weird need to justify decision making at all times despite person A not necessarily boasting or making a judgement which speaks to deep insecurity.
Imo a lot of the above points Andy highlights can be boiled down to variations of intellectual insecurity that raise their ugly heads in people who 1) refuse to re-evaluate their beliefs 2) don't reflect on how they respond to others simply existing 3) can't comprehend/find it uncomfortable to grapple with how deeply random/unpredictable the world is. Everything must be knowable and intentional and I am never wrong thus I always knew and am always justified. Someone needs to write a new narcissists prayer for insecurity.
"weird need to justify decision making at all times despite person A not necessarily boasting or making a judgement" agree this is super common. I think some folks (Eckhart Tolle springs to mind) would say seeing everything as a comment on you specifically is a result of leading your approach to the world with ego.
When I struggle with this, I try and ridirect my thinking back to the person and away from myself and ask myself 'What is the thing about this person I am most curious about right now?', which is usually some question like 'How do you feel when you're playing the guitar/speaking russian?' or 'Was there a person who made you excited about learning the piano/doing trapeze?'
Great piece, I feel like the expert part isn’t the totally right though. For example, in the early days of Covid many public health experts, including the US Surgeon General, said that masks don’t work. Using evidence available at the time it wasn’t that hard to figure out that this was probably wrong.
To your point on imagining yourself as the expert, I think that many people in that position would have also publicly said that masks don’t work so that the supply wasn’t consumed before hospitals got access.
I think there are other pretty common cases where you can understand the motivations of experts and maybe even you’d do the same things as them if you were in their shoes, but still reasonably think that they are literally wrong.
I feel bad for supporting the "most people are NPCs" meme, but I'm starting to model most people as what Aella recently said, as "LLMs that trigger particular words if you say too many negatively-flavored keywords too close together.", and I'm mad at how well it works.
The part about challenging them specifically reminds me of the Scott Alexander post in which he wonders whether some people simply haven't developed Theory of Mind.
Contra the preference cascade point: I think biting your tongue on particularly spicy issues is both very understandable and often socially savvy (weirdness points and all, being a good hang), and if you stigmatize jumping on the preference cascade bandwagon, you might just lock in the false preference.
A better operationalization IMO would be dropping the stick in favor of carrots when people express presently-unpopular opinions (thoughtfully and in good faith). The proper social policy solution, for this issue at least, is toasting-not-roasting (which is also more pleasant to be a part of!)
Very good point yes!
It's always nice to a bit of Andy's sharpness and humour in my feed, thank you for writing this <3
The one of these I most encounter in social situations is "Implying that the whole world is designed to be a challenge to you specifically." In the way I see it show up, I attribute it more to insecurity rather than too much time online (not mutually exclusive ofc).
I see this play out in social settings like person A says "I play piano" or "I speak Russian" and person B is overly impressed and goes on to give long explanations about why they never learned a musical instrument or another language and how impressed they are by person A and how obviously inferior they are. Person A looks super uncomfortable and attempts some sort of comforting of person B, and the conversation eventually fizzles out.
My model of what's going on for person B in that situation is that the insecurity they're feeling inside is so strong that it's taking all their bandwidth, forcing an external response. None of their bandwith is available for considering how person A feels or what an interesting question or connective bit of conversation they might offer to the group. Interested if you would read this in the same way? Very possible that I am just projecting based on times I have been Person B in the past.
Yeah relate to this a lot and I tend to assume that's what's happening too! If I can ease the tension Person B steps out of that mode a lot. I sometimes meet people who actually do seem to just have very bad theories of mind, but I try to give Person Bs the benefit of the doubt. Thanks so much for the kind words Catherine!
Any tips for easing the tension for person B here? or how to redirect the convo in the moment? I think often I get stuck trying to soothe person B
I kind of go into a mode where I'm projecting "I'm patiently waiting for you to get out what you need to, and then we can talk and it'll be nice" and that's had a little success
I totally agree regarding this being the most frequent. Often notice the counter when you meet someone who absolutely has to justify why they didn't do said thing (e.g. "I never learned to speak Russian *because I didn't see the point*.") There's this weird need to justify decision making at all times despite person A not necessarily boasting or making a judgement which speaks to deep insecurity.
Imo a lot of the above points Andy highlights can be boiled down to variations of intellectual insecurity that raise their ugly heads in people who 1) refuse to re-evaluate their beliefs 2) don't reflect on how they respond to others simply existing 3) can't comprehend/find it uncomfortable to grapple with how deeply random/unpredictable the world is. Everything must be knowable and intentional and I am never wrong thus I always knew and am always justified. Someone needs to write a new narcissists prayer for insecurity.
"weird need to justify decision making at all times despite person A not necessarily boasting or making a judgement" agree this is super common. I think some folks (Eckhart Tolle springs to mind) would say seeing everything as a comment on you specifically is a result of leading your approach to the world with ego.
When I struggle with this, I try and ridirect my thinking back to the person and away from myself and ask myself 'What is the thing about this person I am most curious about right now?', which is usually some question like 'How do you feel when you're playing the guitar/speaking russian?' or 'Was there a person who made you excited about learning the piano/doing trapeze?'
Damn I just realised I totally do this. Thanks for describing it so I could notice it as a thing, and stop.
I myself am guilty, happy that was useful!
Great piece, I feel like the expert part isn’t the totally right though. For example, in the early days of Covid many public health experts, including the US Surgeon General, said that masks don’t work. Using evidence available at the time it wasn’t that hard to figure out that this was probably wrong.
To your point on imagining yourself as the expert, I think that many people in that position would have also publicly said that masks don’t work so that the supply wasn’t consumed before hospitals got access.
I think there are other pretty common cases where you can understand the motivations of experts and maybe even you’d do the same things as them if you were in their shoes, but still reasonably think that they are literally wrong.
This read was like drinking a glass of fresh water for my brain. So much of what I read these days is muddy and caustic. Thank you.
I feel bad for supporting the "most people are NPCs" meme, but I'm starting to model most people as what Aella recently said, as "LLMs that trigger particular words if you say too many negatively-flavored keywords too close together.", and I'm mad at how well it works.
The part about challenging them specifically reminds me of the Scott Alexander post in which he wonders whether some people simply haven't developed Theory of Mind.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/11/03/what-developmental-milestones-are-you-missing/