4 ms·

> If you’re still unconvinced—if you’re reflexively rejecting this notion outright, you have to ask yourself: Why? Why wouldn’t you want to acknowledge your int

> If you’re still unconvinced—if you’re reflexively rejecting this notion outright, you have to ask yourself: Why? Why wouldn’t you want to acknowledge your interlocutor’s humanity, your mutual quest for safety, security, and satisfaction? How would compassion for your opponent affect your pursuits? I worry about the answers to those questions, and so should you. I think because I want to recognize my humanity first, before I recognize the other person's humanity. I think this is the fundamental missing piece in the argument: to recognize our own humanity. I think we take it for a given and yet how many of us are afraid to show our humanity to others? How we feel? What we're thinking? Especially in conflict. We don't say how we're shouting at them because we love them and are afraid they will leave us. We don't say we are against abortions because we tried all our lives to have a child biologically and were unable to and thus feel jealous of those who can but choose to abort—or conversely, for allowing women to choose because we grew up in a family where our parents resented us for being born and ruining their lives. I really like the idea of humanizing the other person, I think what is more helpful to me feeling well and to resolving conflict in my life is to make sure that I first humanize myself and show that humanity to others.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I think this is especially worth considering and practicing in this particular forum. It often feels like one of the signals of an authoritative, respectable comment on HN is how effectively the commenter distances themselves from their own humanity. We easily and consistently dismiss any argument that shows emotion, are in fact proud of doing so. It creates a dynamic where we're trying to outdo each other's inhumanity, flex how cold and logical we can be in pursuit of a goal or argument. But without the humanity beneath, without the emotion to motivate us, there is no point to anything, no reason to prefer any outcome to any other.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  I'm sitting here in awe and deep gratitude (oh emotion). Thank you for saying this. I remember reading a book about transformational leadership by Bob Quinn, a professor at the University of Michigan, and talking about how many people in academia pressured him to not use the first person perspective in his book and how he proceeded to use it anyway. I love the community here and worry so often that if I type something, it will be perceived as too emotional, too flowery, too subjective, etc, so even I, a person who has dedicated the last 10 years of his professional life to communicating emotion, balks to express how I'm feeling here. edit: oh, and I studied electrical engineering at a very good school for a few years and did well at it, and maybe I feel the need to say that because I think sometimes people think emotions are soft and fluffy and think people who believe in emotions may not come from the "hard sciences" (understanding the near infinite combinations of emotional interactions seems to be a pretty hard science to me).

giraffe_lady 4y ago

I think this is especially worth considering and practicing in this particular forum. It often feels like one of the signals of an authoritative, respectable comment on HN is how effectively the commenter distances themselves from their own humanity. We easily and consistently dismiss any argument that shows emotion, are in fact proud of doing so. It creates a dynamic where we're trying to outdo each other's inhumanity, flex how cold and logical we can be in pursuit of a goal or argument. But without the humanity beneath, without the emotion to motivate us, there is no point to anything, no reason to prefer any outcome to any other.

jimkleiber 4y ago
I'm sitting here in awe and deep gratitude (oh emotion). Thank you for saying this. I remember reading a book about transformational leadership by Bob Quinn, a professor at the University of Michigan, and talking about how many people in academia pressured him to not use the first person perspective in his book and how he proceeded to use it anyway. I love the community here and worry so often that if I type something, it will be perceived as too emotional, too flowery, too subjective, etc, so even I, a person who has dedicated the last 10 years of his professional life to communicating emotion, balks to express how I'm feeling here. edit: oh, and I studied electrical engineering at a very good school for a few years and did well at it, and maybe I feel the need to say that because I think sometimes people think emotions are soft and fluffy and think people who believe in emotions may not come from the "hard sciences" (understanding the near infinite combinations of emotional interactions seems to be a pretty hard science to me).