← Back to context

Comment by collingreen

1 day ago

Sometimes we find it distasteful to have things we're fully aware of explicitly spelled out. A trite quip here is "nobody wants to see how the sausage is made".

14 comments

collingreen

Reply
jamilton  1 day ago

Yeah. I wonder why that is - is it because it highlights a conflict between our actions and values? If left unexamined, it's a non-issue, so having it spelled out feels like a problem being created?

  • collingreen  20 hours ago

    I like your description.

    I think sometimes this is when we find our way to the middle of two relatively simple drives: "be an orthodox group member/ avoid being a social outcast" and "avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance / admitting hypocrisy".

    If there aren't immediate consequences for inaction (especially if there ARE costs and/or social consequences for action) were very good at convincing ourselves to ignore it (or tell ourselves we will EVENTUALLY deal with it but just not right now)

  • switchbak  1 day ago

    I would much rather assume the people I'm interacting with are honest and conveying their real feelings, vs playing some (probably) Machiavellian game with N levels of dishonesty and manipulation from what could easily be a malevolent person at the core. At least that tends to be the assumption when you pick up on a lack of authenticity in this way.

    When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator, it's very understandable that you should use an abundance of caution. That's probably an instinct in us at this level.

    Of course everyone is at least a little aware that they're putting on a bit of a ruse with their public persona, but that needs to be tethered to some level of authenticity or you'll just be sending out Patrick Bateman vibes.

    • avhception  21 hours ago

      This strikes me as a glass-half-empty interpretation. Why is the stuff from the blog post necessarily machiavellian and manipulative? I didn't read any of that into that blog post. Rather, it was about how to create win-win situations where the people involved genuinely enjoy each others company. No need for bad intentions here.

    • throwaway2037  21 hours ago 

          > When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator

      This statement seems like a paradox. Forgive my "No True Scotsman" example. If the person is such a "master manipulator" what indications do you have? The social normies will miss them, or will think they are the ones making the suggestions/decisions. This is the hallmark of master craft sales people.

    • mewpmewp2  20 hours ago

      Wouldn't you think it is more important what the goal for the other person is? If their goal is to enrich and make both of your lives better, does it matter whether they consicously use social techniques or have natural automatic ability to do so?

      It is also autism vs psychopathy. Patrick Bateman is nowhere close to someone autistic trying to learn those socially successful behaviours. Patrick Bateman is a terrible human being not because they are inauthentic, he is a terrible human being because of the acts he did and wanted to do.

ribosometronome  1 day ago

It may be the first time many people are actively considering these things if they haven't generally felt social struggles / aren't on the spectrum.

skeeter2020  20 hours ago

Sometimes doing something explicit that is typically done without thought or plan feels phony and off. This is such a scenario.

  • robocat  16 hours ago

    That's not what I got from the article. Firstly they seem to be saying that they were not seen as phony (hard to judge). Sure they're using tricks, but they were copying tricks off other people! Not all social interaction is genuinely raw.

    I thought the article was more about leaning into their own style, becoming more intuitive over time.