22 ms·

No question about the practical value of any of this, as the power of these abilities has been discussed and dissected many times, but I'd like to make a brief

No question about the practical value of any of this, as the power of these abilities has been discussed and dissected many times, but I'd like to make a brief case as to _why_ some find this distasteful, after many years of reading forums like this and talking to people who openly expressed hatred of it (it being non-verbal signals, subtext, etc.) First, there is the issue of merit. It seems like this grants those with good social intelligence an "unfair" advantage, since the skills involved aren't involved in actually creating/fixing/understanding anything concrete; its power comes from its ability to persaude, detect, and signal. Some perceive this sort of skill as seeming fake and superficial. Second, it flies in the face of the idea of radical honesty and transparency, as it deals with situations and ideas having to do with saying one thing (or nothing at all) but meaning another. This feels very dishonest, and ugly. Some would like to live in a world where absolutely everything is completely explicitly stated, and no one gets offended, but uses everything said as a learning experience. This may seem naive (because the ability to think and say things others may find subjectively offensive is great), but the desire persists nonetheless. I'm personally torn on the subject, as both ways have their serious negatives, but it's worth stating here anyway.

PakG1 14y ago
I can appreciate why this comment is so up-voted. It's easy for us to think in terms of black and white, binary, here are the lines, true and false if statements. But on both points, the analysis is still coming from the same mindset/framework of thinking. On the issue of merit, if you can't communicate about the merit, the merit might as well not exist. In a case where someone has merit to solve a problem, but not the social skills to properly communicate, the person is very similar to a computer program that can receive input and provide output. Computers are great at following instructions to the letter, so much that if they do something wrong, it's usually the user's fault. But how often do we realize now that a program was designed ineffectively so that we now blame the application rather than the user (see any industrial design review), and how often do we wish we could implement machine learning capabilities that would allow the application to correctly guess what the user is really trying to do? People have the ability to adapt social interactions to the user (call it better AI) and also provide this dyanmic feedback (call it machine learning). We can rise above the level of dumb computers that receive input, provide output, and then blame the user if the output isn't actually what the user was looking for. On the issue of radical honesty and transparency, and feeling very dishonest and ugly. I really can appreciate this, I can. But in learning to be empathetic to others (especially my mother, whose mind operates in a totally different manner than my own, leading to many arguments with her when I was younger and I'll admit more immature), I realize that for them not taking into considerations someone's feelings is equally ugly. The words I usually hear are "You don't know anything about my problem, stop acting like you do." Basically in such interactions, I'm not helping, even if I'm right. If we want to speak about merit, the true test should not be my level of knowledge, but rather, did I solve the problem? If I can't solve the problem, how much is my merit really worth? That reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/793/ http://xkcd.com/793/
PeterBB 14y ago
I definitely sympathize with this. I used to be (and to some extent still am) the sort of person who would get in a lot of social trouble for being too blunt about things, or for focusing on results rather than social niceties. But I’ve come to realize that in order to really value merit and honesty, good communication skills are a prerequisite. I’m going to focus on the second issue, since I think the merit issue is clearer. (There’s a reason we value languages other than assembly, and people like Bill Nye.) If you want to be honest, you must first learn communication skills. It is impossible to communicate honestly if you can’t communicate. Languages do not inherently contain meaning. The only reason we are able to speak and understand each other in English is because there is a social consensus that certain words and phrases mean certain things. If you try to speak to someone who isn’t part of that social consensus (because they speak only a different language, say), your words are meaningless. Therefore, if you say some words to people, and every time they invariably interpret your words as meaning, “This person is socially aggressive and is disagreeing with me as a power play”, then that is what those words mean. It is almost entirely irrelevant that you intended them to mean, “It is my objective analysis that your plan is bad.” Since you probably don’t believe, “I want to make a power play on this person”, you are accidentally being dishonest by stating your opinion the way you did. If you want to communicate, “I think your plan is a bad one, and that we ought to try something different”, then you must put in the effort to actually learn how to communicate that. To take a concrete example, say a friend were to invite you to a movie. The movie is quite bad, and you have a variety of criticisms of it. At the end of the night, your friend asks, “So what did you think?” If you wish to communicate, “I thought it was a bad movie”, you cannot scowl and say, “Typical hollywood tripe.” That would accidentally be dishonest, because you would be communicating, “I’m in a bad mood, and quite possibly angry at you. Also, I’m completely uninterested in your opinion.” Instead, you might try something like smiling and saying, “Oh, it was exactly as terrible as I was expecting. I’m already composing my facebook take-down in my head. What did you think?” This more honestly communicates, “I found the movie lacking, but I’m in a good mood and glad we spent time together.” (Alternatively, if you do happen to be in a bad mood, it’s probably not because of the movie. So you might look thoughtful and say, “Well, I thought it was pretty mediocre, but I’ve been in a bad mood recently anyway, because of X, so I might just be being unfair.”)

PakG1 14y ago

I can appreciate why this comment is so up-voted. It's easy for us to think in terms of black and white, binary, here are the lines, true and false if statements. But on both points, the analysis is still coming from the same mindset/framework of thinking. On the issue of merit, if you can't communicate about the merit, the merit might as well not exist. In a case where someone has merit to solve a problem, but not the social skills to properly communicate, the person is very similar to a computer program that can receive input and provide output. Computers are great at following instructions to the letter, so much that if they do something wrong, it's usually the user's fault. But how often do we realize now that a program was designed ineffectively so that we now blame the application rather than the user (see any industrial design review), and how often do we wish we could implement machine learning capabilities that would allow the application to correctly guess what the user is really trying to do? People have the ability to adapt social interactions to the user (call it better AI) and also provide this dyanmic feedback (call it machine learning). We can rise above the level of dumb computers that receive input, provide output, and then blame the user if the output isn't actually what the user was looking for. On the issue of radical honesty and transparency, and feeling very dishonest and ugly. I really can appreciate this, I can. But in learning to be empathetic to others (especially my mother, whose mind operates in a totally different manner than my own, leading to many arguments with her when I was younger and I'll admit more immature), I realize that for them not taking into considerations someone's feelings is equally ugly. The words I usually hear are "You don't know anything about my problem, stop acting like you do." Basically in such interactions, I'm not helping, even if I'm right. If we want to speak about merit, the true test should not be my level of knowledge, but rather, did I solve the problem? If I can't solve the problem, how much is my merit really worth? That reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/793/ http://xkcd.com/793/

PeterBB 14y ago

I definitely sympathize with this. I used to be (and to some extent still am) the sort of person who would get in a lot of social trouble for being too blunt about things, or for focusing on results rather than social niceties. But I’ve come to realize that in order to really value merit and honesty, good communication skills are a prerequisite. I’m going to focus on the second issue, since I think the merit issue is clearer. (There’s a reason we value languages other than assembly, and people like Bill Nye.) If you want to be honest, you must first learn communication skills. It is impossible to communicate honestly if you can’t communicate. Languages do not inherently contain meaning. The only reason we are able to speak and understand each other in English is because there is a social consensus that certain words and phrases mean certain things. If you try to speak to someone who isn’t part of that social consensus (because they speak only a different language, say), your words are meaningless. Therefore, if you say some words to people, and every time they invariably interpret your words as meaning, “This person is socially aggressive and is disagreeing with me as a power play”, then that is what those words mean. It is almost entirely irrelevant that you intended them to mean, “It is my objective analysis that your plan is bad.” Since you probably don’t believe, “I want to make a power play on this person”, you are accidentally being dishonest by stating your opinion the way you did. If you want to communicate, “I think your plan is a bad one, and that we ought to try something different”, then you must put in the effort to actually learn how to communicate that. To take a concrete example, say a friend were to invite you to a movie. The movie is quite bad, and you have a variety of criticisms of it. At the end of the night, your friend asks, “So what did you think?” If you wish to communicate, “I thought it was a bad movie”, you cannot scowl and say, “Typical hollywood tripe.” That would accidentally be dishonest, because you would be communicating, “I’m in a bad mood, and quite possibly angry at you. Also, I’m completely uninterested in your opinion.” Instead, you might try something like smiling and saying, “Oh, it was exactly as terrible as I was expecting. I’m already composing my facebook take-down in my head. What did you think?” This more honestly communicates, “I found the movie lacking, but I’m in a good mood and glad we spent time together.” (Alternatively, if you do happen to be in a bad mood, it’s probably not because of the movie. So you might look thoughtful and say, “Well, I thought it was pretty mediocre, but I’ve been in a bad mood recently anyway, because of X, so I might just be being unfair.”)