Ok, 1 like = 1 opinion on “judging people”. Good prompt @vgr, lots of stuff here.https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1206317704157642752 …
-
-
This is associational thinking. “If two things are associated, they’re basically the same, right?” It runs on clustering, not grammar; it can’t ask “in what *sense* are these things related?”
Show this thread -
To cluster-mind, words are magic. Enactive. To say a thing is to make it real. Going meta and thinking *about* the words is impossible. So of course criticism hurts if you’re stuck in this mode.
Show this thread -
This is related to the frame of mind where “okay”, “allowed”, “acceptable”, are felt to be primary objects in the world, not reducible to predictions like “these people will treat me this way in this context.”
Show this thread -
That’s a very scary headspace to be in; trying to describe it makes it sound like it’s a very severe mental illness; but it’s actually common among so-called “healthy” people. Heidegger got this.
Show this thread -
You actually feel like social opinions are ontological primaries, and things like atoms, tables, or even sense perceptions are abstractions *over* social judgments. It’s as spooky as it sounds.
Show this thread -
We all use associational cognition constantly; we literally could not see if we didn’t. It’s not a “bad” mode of thought, it’s essential.
Show this thread -
But using *exclusively* associational cognition *for interpreting language* is, I think, a flattened, contracted, degenerate state, relative to what human minds can do in general. Being “insecure” or “easily triggered” is *not* just due to having finite computational power.
Show this thread -
The usual cynical explanation is that being “insecure” is a subconscious self-interested power move — “I precommit to getting upset unless you devote more resources to me.” But I think it’s actually even creepier than that.
Show this thread -
I think it’s a selfish gene thing. A gene for being “triggerable” isn’t there to benefit the organism it’s in, but to benefit its *kin*, who also have the gene, and can benefit from having victims who are easier to abuse and manipulate.
Show this thread -
This is pure speculation on my part, but once I saw it I couldn’t unsee it. The selfish-gene figure-ground inversion applies to behavior too — which means not all your instinctual behaviors were evolved to benefit *you*. Some may be evolved to benefit your kin at your expense.
Show this thread -
The thing that makes “judgment” freighted, makes it “judgmental”, is really hard to explain to people who aren’t as sensitive to it. It really is like your words are magic binding commands, “thou shalt feel bad about thyself.”
Show this thread -
Twitter is especially bad for this because most tweets are commands or evaluative judgments. You just scroll through and get dozens of people telling you what to do and think.
Show this thread -
Ironically, spreading memes that say “think for yourself!” doesn’t help — because those are commands too!
Show this thread -
Making “judgy” pronouncements about how awful insecure people are, isn’t helpful either for making them less insecure.
Show this thread -
But neither is just accommodating people’s insecurities indefinitely going to make them any less insecure. Insecurity is not merely an “unmet need” that goes away once you meet it.
Show this thread -
What conditions promote being more reflective and generative rather than reactive? What gets you away from “judginess” or “being insecure about being judged”?
Show this thread -
1. Truly asocial contemplation. Getting alone and into a nonverbal, feral state; or writing or drawing where definitely nobody will see. Calling it “meditation” is too virtue-signal-y. Just try to do something that doesn’t have social pressure.
Show this thread -
2. Focus attention on something super concrete (like making a physical object) or super impersonal (like math/science); something that prompts you to think about the thing itself, not your image.
Show this thread -
3. Don’t underestimate “merely intellectual” understanding; the literal words and their dictionary meanings and parsing the logical structure. This level of understanding is “shallow” or “mere” because you don’t feel compelled to act on it.
Show this thread -
That “mereness” is bad from the perspective that desires obedience (“you merely comprehend what I say, you don’t *do* it!”) but it’s good if you want to understand what’s going on before acting.
Show this thread -
Getting other people to reflect is hard, but I think it helps to keep the topic on things that lend themselves to “merely abstract geeking out”, because people will naturally have more reflective attitudes about that stuff.
Show this thread -
A certain type of high-integrity person is super resistant to talking about “politics and society” because they correctly note that people including themselves are more enactive/reactive about those topics. They’d rather talk science because those conversations are healthier.
Show this thread -
(Or talk about birdwatching or cooking or woodworking or whatever. “Real” things.)
Show this thread -
If we could get people to think about politics/psychology/society in the same way they think about parts of the physical world they’re curious about, it would be super powerful.
Show this thread -
“Judgment” that is “merely intellectual” — just an assessment or a prediction — is a *good* thing once you get away from all the performative/validating/invalidating baggage.
Show this thread -
Why? If an assessment of a person conveys useful information, you can use it to accomplish goals. Same as all knowledge.
Show this thread -
Of course, when you think about it that way, it’s obvious that often you don’t have enough info to assess people, or your true assessment is kind of boring and moderate.
Show this thread -
True judgments of people allow for relative magnitudes, not just adjectives. Once I was arguing with a friend that I was “not very good at math.” He disagreed. Once we pinned it down we both agreed that there are probably 5000-10,000 living Americans better at math than me.
Show this thread -
True judgments of people allow you to say “this person is better than average in such-and-such a respect, but still not good enough to achieve such-and-such a goal.” Not everything has to be a dichotomy.
Show this thread -
Actually evaluating people — such that you can accurately predict their future behavior — is hard and I’m not unusually good at it.
Show this thread - 72 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.