It seems to me like this points to some degree of equivocation in the usage of “tact” and related words.
As I’ve seen the words used, to call something “tactless” is to say that it’s noticeably and unusually rude, lacking in politeness, etc. Importantly, one would never describe something as “tactless” which could be described as “appropriate”, “reasonable”, etc. To call an action (including a speech act of any sort) “tactless” is to say that it’s a mistake to have taken that action.
It’s the connotations of such usage which are imported and made use of, when one accuses someone of lacking “tact”, and expects third parties to condemn the accused, should they concur with the characterization.
But the way that I see “tact” used in these discussions we’ve been having (including in Raemon’s top-level comment at the top of this comment thread) doesn’t match the above-described usage. Rather, it seems to me to refer to some practice of going beyond what might be called “appropriate” or “reasonable”, and actually, e.g., taking various positive steps to counteract various neuroses of one’s interlocutor. But if that is what we mean by “tact”, then it hardly deserves the connotations that the usual usage comes with!
Isn’t the whole problem that different people don’t seem to agree on what’s reasonable or appropriate, and what’s normal human behavior rather than a dysfunctional neurosis? I don’t think equivocation is the problem here; I think you (we) need to make the empirical case that hugbox cultures are dysfunctional.
Isn’t the whole problem that different people don’t seem to agree on what’s reasonable or appropriate, and what’s normal human behavior rather than a dysfunctional neurosis?
No, I don’t think so. That is—it’s true that different people don’t always agree on this, but I don’t think this is the problem. Why? Because when you use words like “tact” (and “tactful”, “tactless”, etc.), you implicitly refer to what’s acceptable in society as a whole (or commonly understood to be acceptable in whatever sort of social context you’re in). (Otherwise, what you’re talking about isn’t “tact” or “social graces”, but something else—perhaps “consideration”, or “solicitousness”, or some such?)
I think you (we) need to make the empirical case that hugbox cultures are dysfunctional.
Making that case is good, but that’s a separate matter.
EDIT: Let me clarify something that may perhaps not have been obvious:
The reason I said (in the grandparent) that “[the preceding exchange] seems to me like this points to some degree of equivocation in the usage of “tact” and related words” is the following apparent paradox:
On the ordinary meaning of the word “tact” (as it’s used in wider society, beyond Less Wrong), deliberately choosing not to employ tact is usually a bad thing (i.e., not justified by any reasonable personal goal, and detrimental to most plausible collective goals).
But as Raemon seems to be using the word “tact”, deliberately choosing not to employ tact seems not just unproblematic, but often actively beneficial, and sometimes (given some plausible personal and/or collective goals) even ethically obligatory!
This strongly suggests that these two usages of the word “tact” in fact refer to two very different things.
Well, it wouldn’t be tactful to suggest that I know how to be tactful and am deliberately choosing not to do so.
It seems to me like this points to some degree of equivocation in the usage of “tact” and related words.
As I’ve seen the words used, to call something “tactless” is to say that it’s noticeably and unusually rude, lacking in politeness, etc. Importantly, one would never describe something as “tactless” which could be described as “appropriate”, “reasonable”, etc. To call an action (including a speech act of any sort) “tactless” is to say that it’s a mistake to have taken that action.
It’s the connotations of such usage which are imported and made use of, when one accuses someone of lacking “tact”, and expects third parties to condemn the accused, should they concur with the characterization.
But the way that I see “tact” used in these discussions we’ve been having (including in Raemon’s top-level comment at the top of this comment thread) doesn’t match the above-described usage. Rather, it seems to me to refer to some practice of going beyond what might be called “appropriate” or “reasonable”, and actually, e.g., taking various positive steps to counteract various neuroses of one’s interlocutor. But if that is what we mean by “tact”, then it hardly deserves the connotations that the usual usage comes with!
Isn’t the whole problem that different people don’t seem to agree on what’s reasonable or appropriate, and what’s normal human behavior rather than a dysfunctional neurosis? I don’t think equivocation is the problem here; I think you (we) need to make the empirical case that hugbox cultures are dysfunctional.
No, I don’t think so. That is—it’s true that different people don’t always agree on this, but I don’t think this is the problem. Why? Because when you use words like “tact” (and “tactful”, “tactless”, etc.), you implicitly refer to what’s acceptable in society as a whole (or commonly understood to be acceptable in whatever sort of social context you’re in). (Otherwise, what you’re talking about isn’t “tact” or “social graces”, but something else—perhaps “consideration”, or “solicitousness”, or some such?)
Making that case is good, but that’s a separate matter.
EDIT: Let me clarify something that may perhaps not have been obvious:
The reason I said (in the grandparent) that “[the preceding exchange] seems to me like this points to some degree of equivocation in the usage of “tact” and related words” is the following apparent paradox:
On the ordinary meaning of the word “tact” (as it’s used in wider society, beyond Less Wrong), deliberately choosing not to employ tact is usually a bad thing (i.e., not justified by any reasonable personal goal, and detrimental to most plausible collective goals).
But as Raemon seems to be using the word “tact”, deliberately choosing not to employ tact seems not just unproblematic, but often actively beneficial, and sometimes (given some plausible personal and/or collective goals) even ethically obligatory!
This strongly suggests that these two usages of the word “tact” in fact refer to two very different things.