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.
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.