5 ms·

There is something creepy about that Succeed Socially site, IMO. Perhaps it's just the somewhat inevitably bland normative nature of the advice—"white bread"—as

by theoh 7y ago

There is something creepy about that Succeed Socially site, IMO. Perhaps it's just the somewhat inevitably bland normative nature of the advice—"white bread"—as they say. But there is also quite a high ratio of "don'ts" to "dos". The author really gets going enthusiastically when describing all the ways someone's personal hygiene can fail to meet expectations. This isn't balanced by an acknowledgement of how mentally ill people, for example, struggle with personal hygiene. The bland and normative tone seems to be accompanied by an injunction to "conform or lose". The author lives in a "Leave it to Beaver" world, apparently.

laughinghan 7y ago
It's descriptivist advice on how to fit in and explanation of ways someone might not be fitting in. Some people are in a situation that prevents them from fitting in, and they shouldn't be judged for that, but that doesn't make the advice or explanation wrong. I don't think it's saying "conform or lose", just, "this is how to conform". If you can't or don't want to, more power to you, tell that advice to fuck right off. There's nothing wrong with not conforming---its explanation of how you're not conforming is still right, though.
- theoh 7y ago
  I think the nature of the conformity that he's putting forward is problematic, though. I don't agree that there is one right way to act, the one described on his site. There are many styles, but all he offers is conventionality. In an interview he says: "When I look back on some of the most likable people I’ve met, they were using the same core social skills we all do, but just executing on everything at a more polished, consistent level." Likableness is not about "polished, consistent" execution of some social techniques. It has to do with authenticity, a sense of humour, intellectual strengths, etc. The idea that the most likeable people are likeable because they are skilled performers sounds like a normalisation of superficial narcissistic behaviour. It's all a bit humourless and robotic. "Pod person" territory. Social interaction as technical performance is a way of looking at it that most people would find unsettling.
  - newen 7y ago
    What you see as authenticity and a good sense of humor, he sees as skilled performance. And I don't really disagree with him there. Maybe it's because you buy into their "authenticity". Or maybe it's because I don't really get social behavior.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dorgo 7y ago
      There are "naturals", who are authentic and have a good sense of humor without doing anything for it. Everybody else needs more work/practice to get there. Basically, fake "authenticity" until you are "authentic".
      - theoh 7y ago
        FWIW, my reference to narcissism relates to the ideas of the true (deep) and false (superficial) self discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self There isn't a hard scientific consensus about the dynamics of narcissism. It's kind of at the intellectual stage of being a "code smell" that many very serious people have learned to detect from bitter personal experience.
        newen 7y ago
        In addition to there being no scientific consensus on narcissism, and it having multiple meanings, another problem with the word is that it has become a reddit/internet meme, where you have random people arbitrarily accusing people of being narcissistic. Because of this, it's starting to lose any meaning at least in general topic internet forums.
        theoh 7y ago
        OK, I know it's a 'bad' word to use. In my innocence, I think I can use it to invoke the rich, complex psychoanalytical meanings of the word. Serious conversation is what we do here, right? But more seriously, I don't care how diluted the word has become. It names a very recognizable phenomenon, one that we have a problem with in the current culture, but which isn't new. If you care about engaging with that phenomenon (and typically, if you do, you don't have a choice in the matter) then the professional use of the term becomes the only meaning that has significant value.
nyolfen 7y ago
>The bland and normative tone seems to be accompanied by an injunction to "conform or lose". presumably if one is seeking advice on how to succeed by conforming, they are already losing
barry-cotter 7y ago
If you’re willing to live with the consequences of not conforming you can not conform all you like. If you don’t want to conform you can move to a community that supports that. San Francisco puts a lot of effort into supporting people who enjoy defecating in public for example, and you see the same thing in other US West Coast cities too, though they aren’t quite as far along.
- icebraining 7y ago
  You're getting downvoted - maybe you should move to SF.

by theoh 7y ago

laughinghan 7y ago

It's descriptivist advice on how to fit in and explanation of ways someone might not be fitting in. Some people are in a situation that prevents them from fitting in, and they shouldn't be judged for that, but that doesn't make the advice or explanation wrong. I don't think it's saying "conform or lose", just, "this is how to conform". If you can't or don't want to, more power to you, tell that advice to fuck right off. There's nothing wrong with not conforming---its explanation of how you're not conforming is still right, though.

theoh 7y ago
I think the nature of the conformity that he's putting forward is problematic, though. I don't agree that there is one right way to act, the one described on his site. There are many styles, but all he offers is conventionality. In an interview he says: "When I look back on some of the most likable people I’ve met, they were using the same core social skills we all do, but just executing on everything at a more polished, consistent level." Likableness is not about "polished, consistent" execution of some social techniques. It has to do with authenticity, a sense of humour, intellectual strengths, etc. The idea that the most likeable people are likeable because they are skilled performers sounds like a normalisation of superficial narcissistic behaviour. It's all a bit humourless and robotic. "Pod person" territory. Social interaction as technical performance is a way of looking at it that most people would find unsettling.
- newen 7y ago
  What you see as authenticity and a good sense of humor, he sees as skilled performance. And I don't really disagree with him there. Maybe it's because you buy into their "authenticity". Or maybe it's because I don't really get social behavior.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dorgo 7y ago
    There are "naturals", who are authentic and have a good sense of humor without doing anything for it. Everybody else needs more work/practice to get there. Basically, fake "authenticity" until you are "authentic".
    - theoh 7y ago
      FWIW, my reference to narcissism relates to the ideas of the true (deep) and false (superficial) self discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self There isn't a hard scientific consensus about the dynamics of narcissism. It's kind of at the intellectual stage of being a "code smell" that many very serious people have learned to detect from bitter personal experience.
      - newen 7y ago
        In addition to there being no scientific consensus on narcissism, and it having multiple meanings, another problem with the word is that it has become a reddit/internet meme, where you have random people arbitrarily accusing people of being narcissistic. Because of this, it's starting to lose any meaning at least in general topic internet forums.
        theoh 7y ago
        OK, I know it's a 'bad' word to use. In my innocence, I think I can use it to invoke the rich, complex psychoanalytical meanings of the word. Serious conversation is what we do here, right? But more seriously, I don't care how diluted the word has become. It names a very recognizable phenomenon, one that we have a problem with in the current culture, but which isn't new. If you care about engaging with that phenomenon (and typically, if you do, you don't have a choice in the matter) then the professional use of the term becomes the only meaning that has significant value.

nyolfen 7y ago

>The bland and normative tone seems to be accompanied by an injunction to "conform or lose". presumably if one is seeking advice on how to succeed by conforming, they are already losing

barry-cotter 7y ago

If you’re willing to live with the consequences of not conforming you can not conform all you like. If you don’t want to conform you can move to a community that supports that. San Francisco puts a lot of effort into supporting people who enjoy defecating in public for example, and you see the same thing in other US West Coast cities too, though they aren’t quite as far along.

icebraining 7y ago
You're getting downvoted - maybe you should move to SF.