On Kbin, at the bottom of the comment, under "more", there's an option to "copy URL". You can use that to link back to this comment next time you have the chance to roo.
I don't know if it works the same way on Lemmy.
VoxAdActa
joined 2 years ago
So if someone is not familiar with your social rituals then they are not to be trusted?
Yes. This is the basis of pretty much all Western human interaction, from the observations and data I have collected over the last 30+ years. It is the root of all inter-group conflicts in the country, from the lofty halls of politics to the "that group's not really a metal band!" subreddit pettiness.
Humans are ritualistic and their interactions are so rigid as to be almost mechanistic, when you get down to the base of them. Every person isn't so much a unique individual as they are a unique combination of common parts, and their communication ceremonies reflect that.
Because someone who doesn't want to shake hands because it is taboo in their culture is the same thing as someone refusing to check the flaps before takeoff.
Yes. That is exactly correct. If you don't do the ritual right (or right enough, within a margin of specification), you will not be trusted.
Does it make rational sense from the perspective of a sapient being capable of examining their own actions? Fuck no. But that's the world we live in. We refuse to learn it and adapt to it at our peril.
Oh, but you do! I'm one of those autistic people who can't fucking stand flaming red notification icons and have to make them go away.
There's no way to turn off the notification without either clicking "Ignore" or "Reply" (maybe it's "Accept"). It doesn't go away just from reading the message. I even tried to disable the element in my browser, which worked, but then it disabled the normal notification icon too.
Jesus, is this what we're doing with Lemmy? Posting memes older than my kids?
a fucking chat on fucking reddit are you kidding me what?
RIGHT? AND, AND! It's a chat where you can't get rid of the bright flaming red notification until you make the neigh-irreversible decision to either shun a person forever or reply to them.
other than the knowledge of and conformity to social rituals.
That's exactly the point.
What is the benefit of screening people through social rituals?
You know instantly who's part of your culture. Whether or not they are a part of your sub-group within that culture. Whether or not they are capable of interacting with strangers in a way that isn't frightening or disturbing (try asking a guy on meth "So, how about this weather?").
If you respond to a social ritual with hostility, that tells the other person exactly what they want to know about you. They know to avoid you, that you are not "friendly", meaning that you are not a person who can be trusted with other, more important/complex social rituals.
You're seriously asking "What's the point of testing the flaps when the plane is on the ground? It's not flying. What do I need to know about the flaps when we're not flying? It's just me and the plane lying to each other?"
It's not a story a perfectly spherical Jedi in a vacuum would tell you.
It doesn't weed out anything but honest people.
That's like saying a pre-flight check doesn't throw up errors on anything anything but honest machines. But, more to the point, you're right, in the sense that the people on either tail end of the "good/bad people" bell curve aren't going to be precisely detected by a simple test of inclusion/exclusion criteria. The ~60% of people in the middle will be. That's why it's a screening tool, not an in-depth socio-psychological exam.
As long as your honesty comes closer to filling the socially expected role than, say, a man who's high on meth or a Qanon conspiracist who thinks "how are you?" is a sex-trafficker code, you're probably ok.
I agree. That's exactly what I do. Memorize two or three different socially acceptable answers to each of the half-dozen or so most common "human vibe check" questions.
Because that's exactly what they are. They're human vibe checks. It's not about finding out how you're really feeling, or what you honestly think of the weather. It's about being a quick way to sort out who is capable of of functioning in a social capacity and who isn't, without putting in a lot of time and effort doing an in-depth screening.
"Small talk" is culturally designed to weed out 70-80% of those people who are likely to be dangerous, unstable, or unreliable, allowing us to know who we need to pay close attention to in our environment and who we probably don't. It's not a question of "lying" or "telling the truth", it's a question of "can you perform your socially expected role in this cultural ritual?".
Saying "I'm fine, how are you?" is no more "lying" than doing a safety check on an airplane you're about to fly is (because you don't actually need to engage the flaps right now, being on the ground and all). It's just about checking to make sure the right lights come on and the right motors engage. If a person can't even answer a question they've had decades to prepare for, and can't engage, even to a minimum acceptable degree, in a small social ceremony they've watched thousands of times and had hundreds of opportunities to practice themselves, that's a bad sign. That's like trying to engage the flaps and hearing some weird grinding noise and getting a red blinking light on the console.
It's important to note here that I have a bit of an advantage in this arena over a lot of the rest of the community. One of my deepest autistic hyperfocus areas has been observing, experimenting, and collecting data on human interpersonal communications, specifically linguistic communication. It's all very ritualistic, at its base, and it's easy for me to create, memorize, and practice the scripts for performing those rituals in different contexts. And when I fuck one up, I can go back through and memorize another script so if that same conversation every comes up in the future (and it will, because there are only so many rituals!), I won't fuck it up again (to the same degree).
I've got a friend who's otherwise a great guy, but his anxiety disorder is just bonkers bad. Climate change is terrifying to him, so he copes by just straight-up refusing to believe that it's a big deal. It can be solved by planting a bunch of trees, or spraying some kind of plastic particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight ("It's been tested in Alaska! It works! But the government shut it down!"), or by some as-yet-unrevealed technology that's just around the corner.
Also, he's incredibly, unreasonably mad at Al Gore for making An Inconvenient Truth and will insist that he was wrong about literally everything and should never have opened his mouth.
I have to make a concerted effort not to argue with him too much, because I'm pretty sure that if I actually convinced him, he'd self-harm out of fear of the future.
I honestly think he's just a more extreme, slightly-more-self-aware version of how most conservatives feel about the climate change issue. It's scary, so it can't be true.
Yes, motherfuckers, I do demand that all of my morals and beliefs be as close to 100% internally consistent as possible, and yes, I actually believe them all the time. Who are these assholes saying hypocrisy and amoral selfishness are fucking good things?
This graphic would be more effective if it didn't include the fallacy names at the end of the commandments. It's not the concepts that get laughed at, it's the keywords they've been trained to jump on and make fun of. They don't understand the concepts behind the keywords at all.
Dumbass culture has done excellent marketing/propaganda work in making the word "fallacy" a joke. Fortunately, there's an easy workaround: you just don't use the word or any of its terminology. They can't tell you're accusing them of a logical fallacy if you don't actually use the handful of words they've learned to meet with thought-terminating cliches.
Examples (from "more polite" to "less polite"):
Incorrect - "That's a false dichotomy!"
Correct - "What makes you think those are the only two possibilities?"
Incorrect - "I won't fall for your straw man argument."
Correct - "Nobody but you actually believes that. That's not even what we're talking about."
Incorrect - "That's not an argument, it's just an appeal to popularity."
Correct - "Most of us grew out of the 'but moooom, everyone else is doing it!' at about 14." or "So if everyone in this thread thinks it's cool to just punch you in the nutsack, we should go ahead and do it because that makes it right? I'll go first."
They won't recognize your rebuttal if it doesn't include one or more of those keywords right up front. Like an AI chat bot, they don't understand the meaning of words they're criticizing (or, often, even the words they're saying). They just know that [X]% of the time, saying [Y] when someone else says [Q] ends the argument and gets them upvotes.
It's a lot like how a song can't be included in the Christian Music genre if it doesn't drop the word "Jesus" every second line, no matter how Christian the lyrics are otherwise.