1. The post communicates its point but the terminology could be better. (Which is probably why there are so many “hedges”.)
Less important:
2. In order to scale up, some things do require opt in/advance notice. Some possibilities are (largely) exclusive of each other. (A costume party and a surprise water balloon fight.) 3. The post mentions different subcultures have different rules, but talks about society boundaries like they are one thing only.
(Purpose:)
Overall, I made notes as I read the post. (This post is fairly straightforward and didn’t need lots of re-reads to understand, but it is kind of long. More complex and long occasionally go together, so I made notes as I went. It’s also useful for more formed thoughts and has a few quotes or points I could go back and re-read, instead of having to skim the whole thing to get back to.)
There’s been a bid elsewhere for “boundaries” to refer exclusively to the individually-specified thing, and “norms” to be used to indicate the social boundary. This … tracks, and seems good, although it leaves out that people e.g. say “Boundaries, Phil, geez!” in reinforcement of social ones, and that the word “norms” refers to many things besides boundaries.
But I don’t object to using those as the terms if enough other people think they make sense.
No disagreement that some things (many, even) require opting in or advance notice.
I think they largely are one-thing-only within a subculture (where e.g. “LW” would count as a subculture, and “LWers who live in California when they meet in person” would count as a somewhat different one). I think there is approximately always, for any given collection of humans in any given time and place, a surprisingly-consistent-across-people sense of what the norms are.
1. Yeah, this is tricky. I didn’t like the terminology, but I didn’t have a replacement. It’s hard to come up with a term for this (for reasons discussed at length in the post). I was looking more at ‘both are ’boundaries″ and disambiguating that it is your boundary (versus the social one) that you are sort of opting in/asking others to work with you to define. (Opting-in (by self) to boundary exploration (of self by others).) ‘Boundary exploration’ still doesn’t sound good, though ‘boundary violation’ sounds worse. Emphasizing the opt-in part in the terminology seems helpful, given that it’s what you want is a surprise, hence it not being ‘someone asks for permission to push you in the pool’.
1⁄2. It seems clear that what you want would involve people asking someone other than the person being surprised. (Like planning a surprise party, or ‘Friend A throws Friend B into the pool in order to splash Friend C during a water fight/similar game’.)
2. Yeah, aside from the issue over all (surprising seems hard to scale)...You were mostly talking about other things, but it kind of sounded like you wanted a surprise party. (Or to be surprised by, not it, but what would happen there.) That seems like it could be
hard to do with a party.
Very dependent on stuff like where you are (versus talking about an abstract topic on LW). (Like, is the weather good enough that, your friends don’t tell you where the party will be, and the day of, they surprise you by*...going to the beach. Or some other place that’s fun for a group, and it’s a surprise.)
*associated details might include, your eyes are covered or closed until you get there etc.
This is a narrower topic than ‘how to handle/negotiate fitting the personal bounds rather than the other one, which is being treated in this post as serving a different purpose’, so I didn’t focus on it more.
(Prompt:)
The important part would be:
1. The post communicates its point but the terminology could be better. (Which is probably why there are so many “hedges”.)
Less important:
2. In order to scale up, some things do require opt in/advance notice. Some possibilities are (largely) exclusive of each other. (A costume party and a surprise water balloon fight.)
3. The post mentions different subcultures have different rules, but talks about society boundaries like they are one thing only.
(Purpose:)
Overall, I made notes as I read the post. (This post is fairly straightforward and didn’t need lots of re-reads to understand, but it is kind of long. More complex and long occasionally go together, so I made notes as I went. It’s also useful for more formed thoughts and has a few quotes or points I could go back and re-read, instead of having to skim the whole thing to get back to.)
(Thanks)
There’s been a bid elsewhere for “boundaries” to refer exclusively to the individually-specified thing, and “norms” to be used to indicate the social boundary. This … tracks, and seems good, although it leaves out that people e.g. say “Boundaries, Phil, geez!” in reinforcement of social ones, and that the word “norms” refers to many things besides boundaries.
But I don’t object to using those as the terms if enough other people think they make sense.
No disagreement that some things (many, even) require opting in or advance notice.
I think they largely are one-thing-only within a subculture (where e.g. “LW” would count as a subculture, and “LWers who live in California when they meet in person” would count as a somewhat different one). I think there is approximately always, for any given collection of humans in any given time and place, a surprisingly-consistent-across-people sense of what the norms are.
1. Yeah, this is tricky. I didn’t like the terminology, but I didn’t have a replacement. It’s hard to come up with a term for this (for reasons discussed at length in the post). I was looking more at ‘both are ’boundaries″ and disambiguating that it is your boundary (versus the social one) that you are sort of opting in/asking others to work with you to define. (Opting-in (by self) to boundary exploration (of self by others).) ‘Boundary exploration’ still doesn’t sound good, though ‘boundary violation’ sounds worse. Emphasizing the opt-in part in the terminology seems helpful, given that it’s what you want is a surprise, hence it not being ‘someone asks for permission to push you in the pool’.
1⁄2. It seems clear that what you want would involve people asking someone other than the person being surprised. (Like planning a surprise party, or ‘Friend A throws Friend B into the pool in order to splash Friend C during a water fight/similar game’.)
2. Yeah, aside from the issue over all (surprising seems hard to scale)...You were mostly talking about other things, but it kind of sounded like you wanted a surprise party. (Or to be surprised by, not it, but what would happen there.) That seems like it could be
hard to do with a party.
Very dependent on stuff like where you are (versus talking about an abstract topic on LW). (Like, is the weather good enough that, your friends don’t tell you where the party will be, and the day of, they surprise you by*...going to the beach. Or some other place that’s fun for a group, and it’s a surprise.)
*associated details might include, your eyes are covered or closed until you get there etc.
This is a narrower topic than ‘how to handle/negotiate fitting the personal bounds rather than the other one, which is being treated in this post as serving a different purpose’, so I didn’t focus on it more.
3. That makes sense.