I think “Look bro, we hug here, so you’re in the wrong” isn’t the kindest of responses after you’ve just tried to hug someone who doesn’t want to be hugged, and not the most likely to get him to lower his sword.
Yeah, I wouldn’t say that. I might say something like “oh, yeah, the reason this happened is that we hug around here; if you need to not be hugged that’s totally fine and something people can adjust to but you gotta give them the heads up, sorry for the unpleasant surprise.”
When you paint a picture of a “clean space” where Alexis both fails to notice that the new guy doesn’t want a hug and she can’t just apologize and trust it will be accepted, I don’t think “This clean space must be protected by keeping Bryce out”, I think “This place needs some work”.
Uh, I notice you keep (mildly) strawmanning me. This is like the third time now that you’ve taken something I said and rounded it to a dumber, worse thing?
I know, and I didn’t mean to imply that you would. I did explicitly say that maybe we don’t differ here.
Part of the reason for such an exaggerated caricature was in hopes of making it clear that “I don’t think you’d actually say this”/finding common ground. The other part is to highlight the direction of error. Because while the exaggerated version is obvious, the dynamics themselves are very much not, which means that all sorts of intelligent people end up making these mistakes in more subtle ways.
I’d still say things differently in such a situation, though crossing the inferential distance in a comment probably isn’t going to happen. This Monday and next I have a couple posts on this topic (as part of a larger sequence) which explain where I’m coming from as it relates here. If you’re interested in reading them, I’m curious what your response would be.
Uh, I notice you keep (mildly) strawmanning me.
I prefer the term “Failing the ITT” :)
I’m happy to accept corrections/clarifications, and sorry it came off like putting words in your mouth. I know I phrased it in a way to accentuate what I see as a problem with the picture you paint, but I genuinely don’t know how this differs from what you describe. I have a hard time imagining you saying that the person being hugged did want the hug, or that the person hugging did notice, etc, so I’m not sure where the misrepresentation is. Rereading, you only applied the names Alexis/Bryce to the “Asks a seemingly innocent question” example, but that doesn’t seem like a substantive mistake?
Yeah, I wouldn’t say that. I might say something like “oh, yeah, the reason this happened is that we hug around here; if you need to not be hugged that’s totally fine and something people can adjust to but you gotta give them the heads up, sorry for the unpleasant surprise.”
Uh, I notice you keep (mildly) strawmanning me. This is like the third time now that you’ve taken something I said and rounded it to a dumber, worse thing?
I know, and I didn’t mean to imply that you would. I did explicitly say that maybe we don’t differ here.
Part of the reason for such an exaggerated caricature was in hopes of making it clear that “I don’t think you’d actually say this”/finding common ground. The other part is to highlight the direction of error. Because while the exaggerated version is obvious, the dynamics themselves are very much not, which means that all sorts of intelligent people end up making these mistakes in more subtle ways.
I’d still say things differently in such a situation, though crossing the inferential distance in a comment probably isn’t going to happen. This Monday and next I have a couple posts on this topic (as part of a larger sequence) which explain where I’m coming from as it relates here. If you’re interested in reading them, I’m curious what your response would be.
I prefer the term “Failing the ITT” :)
I’m happy to accept corrections/clarifications, and sorry it came off like putting words in your mouth. I know I phrased it in a way to accentuate what I see as a problem with the picture you paint, but I genuinely don’t know how this differs from what you describe. I have a hard time imagining you saying that the person being hugged did want the hug, or that the person hugging did notice, etc, so I’m not sure where the misrepresentation is. Rereading, you only applied the names Alexis/Bryce to the “Asks a seemingly innocent question” example, but that doesn’t seem like a substantive mistake?