3 ms·

Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. That's why our co

Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. That's why our country is so divided these days. Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste? Going back to the video, you might think all that focus on triggers and anxiety is indicative of a greater toxic culture (evidence of aggregate behavior as you say) -- but were you there for the whole thing? Did you try to understand what they were coming from, and why they take that approach? Did you try to first discover with an open mind what you have in common and what your values fundamentally disagree with? I'm sure in a moment of carelessness or stress you've probably done something stupid in traffic, but it would be unfair for someone to categorize you as a negligent or inept person without talking to you first. I am kind of harping on this because I used to be pretty judgmental, but since breaking out of that mindset I've become a kinder and frankly much smarter person. It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people.

coldtea 7y ago
>Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. People as individuals of course deserve for us to listen to them. Anybody. But it's OK to mock groups that go into aggregate stupid behavior - which also means mocking their members, but as members, not necessarily as whole human beings. >Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste? Depends. If you're trying to judge an individual judge them on a case by case basis, despite whatever group(s) they might belong to. After all, their group affiliation doesn't define somebody totally. There can be jerk Democrats and wonderful Republicans for example, and vice versa. In fact, there can be great people that are otherwise (and for their own life-history reasons) bigots, and hideous hypocritical people who are otherwise humanitarians. People are complex. That said, it's also helpful to judge movements in aggregate, when trying to trace historical contours, affect change, etc. MLK could simply throw his hands up and say "everybody is different, I can't assume there is racism in the country" and try to access everybody individually -- and that would have gotten nowhere. Or, as he did, he could say there are very strong racist currents in the country, especially in the South, and I need to march there, and do so and so to change those people, as he did. One has to think at several levels of abstraction, not just individual people. >It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people. If anything, I have another problem, I'm heavily contrarian. I see some things as basically correct, but if you push towards -X in a discussion (or if many people do) I will push towards X (even if in another disucssion I will push towards -X if somebody pushes to X) to restore balance. I also tend to pick things I agree with with both sides of a debate, even things they'll never themselves agree with ever. I basically hate group conformity. E.g. I can see the truth in some alt-right points, and I can see hardline leftist points. Not merely from a centrist way though (a compromise between them) but even hardcore tenets of one or the other side.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. Because otherwise you're just going on your own biases and what other people have told you. It's like I didn't understand blues music very well until I realized that they put a lot of feeling into how they placed each specific note, more so than other genres I've heard. But if you don't know to listen to that, you don't understand what they're trying to say. Groups of people talk in different ways like that, too. It's easy to listen to them and assume they're saying nothing of value, but perhaps they're communicating something you haven't learned to listen to yet.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. You try to understand people at the individual level not "at first", but always -- when dealing with them individually. For any other type of dealing (social, political, organizational, etc) you must try to understand people at various aggregate levels. Here's a company analogy. If you do customer support, treat customers as individual people. But if you plan your next releases features, you need to think about demographics and what different user categories want. And if you plan to open a store, you need to think of the aggregate patterns in the area (average spending, shopping behaviors, etc).
    - asdfman123 7y ago
      You can look at hard data and form models about groups (e.g. perhaps to best market to them), but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. And of course, it is often important to group and categorize people to think about them. I'm not disagreeing with that. I don't think anyone reasonably intelligent could disagree with that. Let me put it this way: I'm a classic overanalyzer and I've found while I'm very good at analyzing and theorizing, if I do not have a rock-solid foundation for my premises my theories can be shockingly wrong. If someone snubs me in public I can create quite elaborate theories about why they are the way they are, but if I simply check with them to see if my premises are true I find that maybe they just didn't see me. of course, that's kind of a silly example, but the same goes for any kind of analysis. That's why you talk to people -- to test out your premises to see if they're really true. Because otherwise, when you analyze people, what are you really basing it on? A completely neutral, objective assessment based on data with an understanding that it paints multiple pictures? Or is it a passing value judgement when the data can be interpreted many different ways? To understand a subculture, you have to first understand that subculture. You don't only have to talk to people -- you can also read and think about their beliefs in good faith. But if you don't do either, you are essentially arguing with the title of the news article without reading the explanation!

coldtea 7y ago

>Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. People as individuals of course deserve for us to listen to them. Anybody. But it's OK to mock groups that go into aggregate stupid behavior - which also means mocking their members, but as members, not necessarily as whole human beings. >Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste? Depends. If you're trying to judge an individual judge them on a case by case basis, despite whatever group(s) they might belong to. After all, their group affiliation doesn't define somebody totally. There can be jerk Democrats and wonderful Republicans for example, and vice versa. In fact, there can be great people that are otherwise (and for their own life-history reasons) bigots, and hideous hypocritical people who are otherwise humanitarians. People are complex. That said, it's also helpful to judge movements in aggregate, when trying to trace historical contours, affect change, etc. MLK could simply throw his hands up and say "everybody is different, I can't assume there is racism in the country" and try to access everybody individually -- and that would have gotten nowhere. Or, as he did, he could say there are very strong racist currents in the country, especially in the South, and I need to march there, and do so and so to change those people, as he did. One has to think at several levels of abstraction, not just individual people. >It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people. If anything, I have another problem, I'm heavily contrarian. I see some things as basically correct, but if you push towards -X in a discussion (or if many people do) I will push towards X (even if in another disucssion I will push towards -X if somebody pushes to X) to restore balance. I also tend to pick things I agree with with both sides of a debate, even things they'll never themselves agree with ever. I basically hate group conformity. E.g. I can see the truth in some alt-right points, and I can see hardline leftist points. Not merely from a centrist way though (a compromise between them) but even hardcore tenets of one or the other side.

asdfman123 7y ago
I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. Because otherwise you're just going on your own biases and what other people have told you. It's like I didn't understand blues music very well until I realized that they put a lot of feeling into how they placed each specific note, more so than other genres I've heard. But if you don't know to listen to that, you don't understand what they're trying to say. Groups of people talk in different ways like that, too. It's easy to listen to them and assume they're saying nothing of value, but perhaps they're communicating something you haven't learned to listen to yet.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. You try to understand people at the individual level not "at first", but always -- when dealing with them individually. For any other type of dealing (social, political, organizational, etc) you must try to understand people at various aggregate levels. Here's a company analogy. If you do customer support, treat customers as individual people. But if you plan your next releases features, you need to think about demographics and what different user categories want. And if you plan to open a store, you need to think of the aggregate patterns in the area (average spending, shopping behaviors, etc).
  - asdfman123 7y ago
    You can look at hard data and form models about groups (e.g. perhaps to best market to them), but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. And of course, it is often important to group and categorize people to think about them. I'm not disagreeing with that. I don't think anyone reasonably intelligent could disagree with that. Let me put it this way: I'm a classic overanalyzer and I've found while I'm very good at analyzing and theorizing, if I do not have a rock-solid foundation for my premises my theories can be shockingly wrong. If someone snubs me in public I can create quite elaborate theories about why they are the way they are, but if I simply check with them to see if my premises are true I find that maybe they just didn't see me. of course, that's kind of a silly example, but the same goes for any kind of analysis. That's why you talk to people -- to test out your premises to see if they're really true. Because otherwise, when you analyze people, what are you really basing it on? A completely neutral, objective assessment based on data with an understanding that it paints multiple pictures? Or is it a passing value judgement when the data can be interpreted many different ways? To understand a subculture, you have to first understand that subculture. You don't only have to talk to people -- you can also read and think about their beliefs in good faith. But if you don't do either, you are essentially arguing with the title of the news article without reading the explanation!