4 ms·

> but refusing to signal entirely isn't the path to less toxic relationships; it's the path to being alone in your bubble. You can still talk to people and you

> but refusing to signal entirely isn't the path to less toxic relationships; it's the path to being alone in your bubble. You can still talk to people and you can both gauge each other based on personality and topics of interest. In fact you'll find more people of interest by talking to them rather than filtering by outward appearance. I'd argue you remain in a relative mono-culture or bubble by filtering via aesthetics. We might have differing opinions due to circumstance - I live in an inner city suburb and work in an office of ~700 people, so you're having conversations with a lot of people whether you like it or not. I can understand this might be different if someone lived a in a rural area where aesthetics means someone can trust that you're a local and can use aesthetics as a short cut to kick off a conversation. But even suburban life allows us to graduate from using the shit we buy as a way of defining us to what we do and say.

setr 9y ago
>In fact you'll find more people of interest by talking to them rather than filtering by outward appearance. ...at the cost of time/effort. Of course you'll find more people by removing a filter that isn't 100% correct; you'll just find more noise too. I've never understood "don't judge a book by its cover"; the alternative is to read every single book? If your metric is decent (and being corrected over time), then judging should drastically refuce your rate of false positives. Assuming the 90% rule, finite time, and sufficient resources that even with lots of false negatives there'll still be enough books (or otherwise) for you to go through; then not judging by the cover is a massive inefficiency. You're just doing a naive brute force search by not filtering by the cover. The problem occurs when your policy is strict, not that it exists. And its pretty difficult to imagine that aesthetics aren't a useful signal to watch for, unless you simply aren't paying attention; very few communities don't construct their own slang, attire, quirks and what-nots. Even long-standing groups of two or three will do so. And few are skilled at hiding it. So you can get at least some indication of a person's background and interests based off their behavior and clothing; they question is if you can get enough information to construct a useful filter from, and that's partially dependent on your own awareness of various cultures, your ability to detect and the actual information available from this signal.
- icanhackit 9y ago
  > I've never understood "don't judge a book by its cover"; the alternative is to read every single book? Rubbish. Unless you work from home and aren't forced to engage with dozens of people each day, which is what most people who work in cities (and by virtue make up a considerable portion of the population) do, then filtering by discussion is a lot easier than striking up a conversation with every person who wears shit that jives to your sensibilities or sips on something you think is hip.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    I disagree. These are the things that allow us to approach others to talk and you can't know if they are drinking the coffee or ordering vegetarian because they are signaling or because that is them. There are billions of people in the world and most folks have access to hundreds if not thousands. One simply cannot talk to everyone. Gotta have some way to do an initial sorting. Sure, it might be petty most times, but it is better than nothing. I'd just advise folks go out of their comfort zone more often and ask folks about things they find different or strange.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  >> And its pretty difficult to imagine that aesthetics aren't a useful signal to watch for, unless you simply aren't paying attention; very few communities don't construct their own slang, attire, quirks and what-nots. Even long-standing groups of two or three will do so. And few are skilled at hiding it. I've seen several people buy Hyena Agenda[1] shirts specifically to find other furries out in the wild without being overt about it to non-furries (most furry apparel is obviously furry, while this company sells a lot of less obvious stuff). Furries are majority LGBTQ nerds by a wide margin, so it's a great filter. [1] https://hyena-agenda.com/ https://hyena-agenda.com/

setr 9y ago

>In fact you'll find more people of interest by talking to them rather than filtering by outward appearance. ...at the cost of time/effort. Of course you'll find more people by removing a filter that isn't 100% correct; you'll just find more noise too. I've never understood "don't judge a book by its cover"; the alternative is to read every single book? If your metric is decent (and being corrected over time), then judging should drastically refuce your rate of false positives. Assuming the 90% rule, finite time, and sufficient resources that even with lots of false negatives there'll still be enough books (or otherwise) for you to go through; then not judging by the cover is a massive inefficiency. You're just doing a naive brute force search by not filtering by the cover. The problem occurs when your policy is strict, not that it exists. And its pretty difficult to imagine that aesthetics aren't a useful signal to watch for, unless you simply aren't paying attention; very few communities don't construct their own slang, attire, quirks and what-nots. Even long-standing groups of two or three will do so. And few are skilled at hiding it. So you can get at least some indication of a person's background and interests based off their behavior and clothing; they question is if you can get enough information to construct a useful filter from, and that's partially dependent on your own awareness of various cultures, your ability to detect and the actual information available from this signal.

icanhackit 9y ago
> I've never understood "don't judge a book by its cover"; the alternative is to read every single book? Rubbish. Unless you work from home and aren't forced to engage with dozens of people each day, which is what most people who work in cities (and by virtue make up a considerable portion of the population) do, then filtering by discussion is a lot easier than striking up a conversation with every person who wears shit that jives to your sensibilities or sips on something you think is hip.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  I disagree. These are the things that allow us to approach others to talk and you can't know if they are drinking the coffee or ordering vegetarian because they are signaling or because that is them. There are billions of people in the world and most folks have access to hundreds if not thousands. One simply cannot talk to everyone. Gotta have some way to do an initial sorting. Sure, it might be petty most times, but it is better than nothing. I'd just advise folks go out of their comfort zone more often and ask folks about things they find different or strange.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
rainbowmverse 9y ago
>> And its pretty difficult to imagine that aesthetics aren't a useful signal to watch for, unless you simply aren't paying attention; very few communities don't construct their own slang, attire, quirks and what-nots. Even long-standing groups of two or three will do so. And few are skilled at hiding it. I've seen several people buy Hyena Agenda[1] shirts specifically to find other furries out in the wild without being overt about it to non-furries (most furry apparel is obviously furry, while this company sells a lot of less obvious stuff). Furries are majority LGBTQ nerds by a wide margin, so it's a great filter. [1] https://hyena-agenda.com/ https://hyena-agenda.com/