I’m not convinced that “offense” is a variety of “pain” in the first place. They feel to me like two different things.
When I imagine a scenario that hurts me without offending me (e.g. accidentally touching a hot stovetop), I anticipate feelings like pain response and distraction in the short term, fear in the medium term, and aversion in the long term.
When I imagine a scenario that offends me without hurting me (e.g. overhearing a slur against a group of which I’m not a member) I anticipate feelings like anger and urge-to-punish in the short term, wariness and distrust in the medium term, and invoking heavy status penalties or even fully disassociating myself from the offensive party in the long term.
Of course, an action can be both offensive and painful, like the anti-Semitic slurs you mention. But an offensive action need not be painful. My intuition suggests that this is a principled reason (as opposed to a practical one) for the general norm of pluralistic societies that offensiveness alone is not enough to constrain free speech.
I’m not sure which category the British Fish thought experiment falls into; the description doesn’t completely clarify whether the Britons are feeling pained or offended or both.
I’m not convinced that “offense” is a variety of “pain” in the first place. They feel to me like two different things.
Extremely important point. And the “offense” variety of feeling is the dangerous one—the one we shouldn’t accede to.
(A side note: one of the most insidious forms of procrastination is taking offense at a problem, rather than actually solving it. Offense motivates punish-and-protest behavior, rather than problem-solving behavior.)
A side note: one of the most insidious forms of procrastination is taking offense at a problem, rather than actually solving it. Offense motivates punish-and-protest behavior, rather than problem-solving behavior
Wow, this is so true. My least constructive response to being told to do something by my boss is taking offense, and I have to wait hours (or sometimes days) before I don’t feel offended anymore so that I can focus on figuring out how to do what I’ve been asked.
My least constructive response to being told to do something by my boss is taking offense, and I have to wait hours (or sometimes days) before I don’t feel offended anymore so that I can focus on figuring out how to do what I’ve been asked.
A faster way: state your offense in the form of a “should” or “should not” that is being violated. (e.g. “I shouldn’t have to do this stupid s...tuff.”). Then, restate that in the form of a pair of statements about your preferences, first what you don’t like, and then what you do.
e.g. “I don’t like it that I have to do this stupid s...tuff”, followed by, “I would like it if I didn’t have to do this stupid stuff.”
As you make the statements, pay attention to your emotional response to each one. The first should bring righteous agreement (“damn straight I shouldn’t have to!”), followed by something more like, “Yeah, I really don’t like it, but I guess I do need to do it” for the second one, and “Gosh, that really would be nice if I didn’t have to do it. Maybe I could just try and get it over with quickly.”
If you don’t get responses like these, try playing with the phrasing or subject matter of the perceived offense. Oftentimes, there is more than one norm being violated, and sometimes your unconscious norms are not immediately obvious to conscious introspection.
It also helps to question the standards themselves—offense and the corresponding protest-punish motivation is a terrible influence on clear thinking, because it deludes you into ignoring the facts of the situation. (e.g., you might not want to do something, but you probably still need to do it.) While our brains are concerned with protesting the situation, they essentially operate in a state of denial about the situation. Appropriate litanies can also be helpful here… i.e., “if I have to do it, then I want to know that I have to do it… and admitting it won’t make it any worse.”
Offense-taking is essentially the true antithesis of rational thinking and action, because at a fundamental level it is insisting that what’s happening isn’t “really” happening, on the grounds that it’s “not supposed to” be!
And it thus directly prevents actual problem solving, since it keeps you from even admitting to the basic facts upon which any effective plan of action would actually depend. ;-)
I’m not convinced that “offense” is a variety of “pain” in the first place. They feel to me like two different things.
When I imagine a scenario that hurts me without offending me (e.g. accidentally touching a hot stovetop), I anticipate feelings like pain response and distraction in the short term, fear in the medium term, and aversion in the long term.
When I imagine a scenario that offends me without hurting me (e.g. overhearing a slur against a group of which I’m not a member) I anticipate feelings like anger and urge-to-punish in the short term, wariness and distrust in the medium term, and invoking heavy status penalties or even fully disassociating myself from the offensive party in the long term.
Of course, an action can be both offensive and painful, like the anti-Semitic slurs you mention. But an offensive action need not be painful. My intuition suggests that this is a principled reason (as opposed to a practical one) for the general norm of pluralistic societies that offensiveness alone is not enough to constrain free speech.
I’m not sure which category the British Fish thought experiment falls into; the description doesn’t completely clarify whether the Britons are feeling pained or offended or both.
Extremely important point. And the “offense” variety of feeling is the dangerous one—the one we shouldn’t accede to.
(A side note: one of the most insidious forms of procrastination is taking offense at a problem, rather than actually solving it. Offense motivates punish-and-protest behavior, rather than problem-solving behavior.)
Wow, this is so true. My least constructive response to being told to do something by my boss is taking offense, and I have to wait hours (or sometimes days) before I don’t feel offended anymore so that I can focus on figuring out how to do what I’ve been asked.
A faster way: state your offense in the form of a “should” or “should not” that is being violated. (e.g. “I shouldn’t have to do this stupid s...tuff.”). Then, restate that in the form of a pair of statements about your preferences, first what you don’t like, and then what you do.
e.g. “I don’t like it that I have to do this stupid s...tuff”, followed by, “I would like it if I didn’t have to do this stupid stuff.”
As you make the statements, pay attention to your emotional response to each one. The first should bring righteous agreement (“damn straight I shouldn’t have to!”), followed by something more like, “Yeah, I really don’t like it, but I guess I do need to do it” for the second one, and “Gosh, that really would be nice if I didn’t have to do it. Maybe I could just try and get it over with quickly.”
If you don’t get responses like these, try playing with the phrasing or subject matter of the perceived offense. Oftentimes, there is more than one norm being violated, and sometimes your unconscious norms are not immediately obvious to conscious introspection.
It also helps to question the standards themselves—offense and the corresponding protest-punish motivation is a terrible influence on clear thinking, because it deludes you into ignoring the facts of the situation. (e.g., you might not want to do something, but you probably still need to do it.) While our brains are concerned with protesting the situation, they essentially operate in a state of denial about the situation. Appropriate litanies can also be helpful here… i.e., “if I have to do it, then I want to know that I have to do it… and admitting it won’t make it any worse.”
Offense-taking is essentially the true antithesis of rational thinking and action, because at a fundamental level it is insisting that what’s happening isn’t “really” happening, on the grounds that it’s “not supposed to” be!
And it thus directly prevents actual problem solving, since it keeps you from even admitting to the basic facts upon which any effective plan of action would actually depend. ;-)
Thanks. It seems like it would work, and I would be interested in being more introspective about the source of my indignation in any case.
So now I’m looking forward to being offended.. which will also help.