7 ms·

This tendency is has particularly glaring and tragic effects in discussions of how communities should handle reports of and design systems to prevent sexual ass

This tendency is has particularly glaring and tragic effects in discussions of how communities should handle reports of and design systems to prevent sexual assault. Myself, when I want to take something seriously, it means I: - Try to spot special cases so I can be explicit about whether or not they should be handled. - Try to be precise in my language, to ensure I'm not (for example) conflating two issues with a subtle but meaningful difference. - Try to check my understanding of things, even in cases where I'm 80% sure I've understood someone correctly. I want to get to 97%. - Try to nail down unambiguously which things we are concluding as we go along. If I don't do these things, it feels like I'm not taking the issue seriously. If someone says something and I spot an ambiguity in their words which seems relevant, I feel an urge to ask about it--both to convey that I'm Actively Listening and to ensure I really understand them. The less confident I am in a subject, the more likely I am to judge an ambiguity is worth asking about--maybe its minor, but I don't know if I don't ask! When I notice a special case, my intuition starts loudly blaring "Risk ahead! Risk ahead! If you're putting this risk out-of-scope, be explicit about it." All of these habits, when applied to conversations about sexual assault, are generally interpreted as being pedantic. This arouses suspicion in other people: "why are you bringing this up?" "why are you trying to be so cut-and-dry?" "why are you trying to rules-lawyer consent?" The conclusion which normal people naturally answer that question with go: This person is trying to create social space for abusers to operate. The lesson is: avoid conversations about sexual assault unless you know you are first aligned on broader conversational norms like like "How do we establish that we've agreed on something?" and "How do we talk about a nonzero probability of system failure?"

krageon 7y ago
The lesson is actually not to be pedantic. It is okay for things to feel a certain way to you but it's not okay for you to not recognise that in some subjects you need to operate from a position of empathy and sympathy to the party you are conversing with. Social situations need you to be delicate sometimes, and that goes way beyond "conversations about sexual assault". It applies to every part of your life.
- monktastic1 7y ago
  It sounds like your parent is explaining why their version of empathy looks like pedantry to others. I'm not sure "be empathetic, not pedantic" is helpful. S/he already has enough self-awareness to recognize that that is what others expect from him/her.
  - Espressosaurus 7y ago
    The parent's version of empathy is pedantry and solely focused on forcing the person they're talking to to explain themselves and their thought process. It's pretty off-putting when done in the wrong way and especially at the wrong time. Understanding someone's thoughts is but one part of empathy however. Another, arguably more important part of empathy (at least when talking about interpersonal relationships) is identifying how the other person feels, and in that, meticulously picking apart their opinions is probably not helping. In fact, it's probably hurting. That the parent is highlighting sexual assault as where this line of questioning breaks down is indicative they haven't fully internalized the lesson: it applies everywhere, to everyone. There are times and places and people and topics for whom picking apart the argument is a good thing. There are also times and places and people and topics where that doesn't apply. It differs person to person and topic to topic. It means we need to empathize with the people we're talking to and recognize the boundaries and when we're getting into non-productive territory. I occasionally hang out with non-engineer hippies, and they don't get in these kinds of arguments (they get into different arguments). They're much more about feeling what the other person feels, and supporting them in their feelings, with maybe some edging around on solutions. I still struggle with the need to pick apart the problem and try to solve it. Frequently, that is not what the other person is interested in at that time. Often enough, they've already attempted most of those lines of attack and they're just venting. Sometimes we just need to be empathetic, sympathetic, and supportive.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      > I still struggle with the need to pick apart the problem and try to solve it. ... Often enough, they've already attempted most of those lines of attack Yeah, I could see how that might be rather annoying - "dude, I've already tried those things you're telling me about - why the f--k would you assume I didn't? Now you've hurt my feelings, too! Please, just go away."
zozbot234 7y ago
> This tendency is has particularly glaring and tragic effects in discussions of how communities should handle reports of and design systems to prevent sexual assault. These effects are not "glaring and tragic", they're actually quite beneficial. Sexual assault is something that's very often perpetrated by narcissists and sociopaths, and the best way of holding such folks accountable and keeping them on the tight leash they need to be kept on (for the sake of everyone else's safety) is precisely to carefully and methodically ask questions like yours. "Social space for abusers to operate" is the natural outcome when people don't ask these questions. You should be very suspicious when you see someone taking offense at e.g. a request to be precise in their language, or confirm your understanding of something like consent - that's a narcissist's M.O. Keep these people at a distance, and you'll avert a lot of problems for you and those around you. Sometimes including sexual misconduct.

krageon 7y ago

The lesson is actually not to be pedantic. It is okay for things to feel a certain way to you but it's not okay for you to not recognise that in some subjects you need to operate from a position of empathy and sympathy to the party you are conversing with. Social situations need you to be delicate sometimes, and that goes way beyond "conversations about sexual assault". It applies to every part of your life.

monktastic1 7y ago
It sounds like your parent is explaining why their version of empathy looks like pedantry to others. I'm not sure "be empathetic, not pedantic" is helpful. S/he already has enough self-awareness to recognize that that is what others expect from him/her.
- Espressosaurus 7y ago
  The parent's version of empathy is pedantry and solely focused on forcing the person they're talking to to explain themselves and their thought process. It's pretty off-putting when done in the wrong way and especially at the wrong time. Understanding someone's thoughts is but one part of empathy however. Another, arguably more important part of empathy (at least when talking about interpersonal relationships) is identifying how the other person feels, and in that, meticulously picking apart their opinions is probably not helping. In fact, it's probably hurting. That the parent is highlighting sexual assault as where this line of questioning breaks down is indicative they haven't fully internalized the lesson: it applies everywhere, to everyone. There are times and places and people and topics for whom picking apart the argument is a good thing. There are also times and places and people and topics where that doesn't apply. It differs person to person and topic to topic. It means we need to empathize with the people we're talking to and recognize the boundaries and when we're getting into non-productive territory. I occasionally hang out with non-engineer hippies, and they don't get in these kinds of arguments (they get into different arguments). They're much more about feeling what the other person feels, and supporting them in their feelings, with maybe some edging around on solutions. I still struggle with the need to pick apart the problem and try to solve it. Frequently, that is not what the other person is interested in at that time. Often enough, they've already attempted most of those lines of attack and they're just venting. Sometimes we just need to be empathetic, sympathetic, and supportive.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > I still struggle with the need to pick apart the problem and try to solve it. ... Often enough, they've already attempted most of those lines of attack Yeah, I could see how that might be rather annoying - "dude, I've already tried those things you're telling me about - why the f--k would you assume I didn't? Now you've hurt my feelings, too! Please, just go away."

zozbot234 7y ago

> This tendency is has particularly glaring and tragic effects in discussions of how communities should handle reports of and design systems to prevent sexual assault. These effects are not "glaring and tragic", they're actually quite beneficial. Sexual assault is something that's very often perpetrated by narcissists and sociopaths, and the best way of holding such folks accountable and keeping them on the tight leash they need to be kept on (for the sake of everyone else's safety) is precisely to carefully and methodically ask questions like yours. "Social space for abusers to operate" is the natural outcome when people don't ask these questions. You should be very suspicious when you see someone taking offense at e.g. a request to be precise in their language, or confirm your understanding of something like consent - that's a narcissist's M.O. Keep these people at a distance, and you'll avert a lot of problems for you and those around you. Sometimes including sexual misconduct.