Nerds are very often too shy. They are not willing to go to the extreme. Radical feminism has a lot of influence on our society and plenty of members of that community don’t hold back at all.
Bending your own views to be avoid offending other people leads to being perceive as inconfident. It’s not authentic. That’s bad for movement building.
I think you are making a mistake if you treat the goal of every project as being about affecting public policy. Quite often you don’t need a majority. It’s much better to have a small group of strongly committed people then a large group that’s only lukewarm committed.
Mormons who spent 2 years doing their mission are extreme. Mormonism is growing really fast while less extreme Christian groups don’t grow. Groups that advocate extreme positions give their members a feeling that they are special. They are not boring.
In the scarce attention economy of the 21st century being boring is one of the worst things you can do if you want to speak to a lot of people.
Mormon missions are not primaritly there to gain converts. They are there to force the Mormon to make a commitment of time and resources to Mormonism so that the sunk costs would psychologically tie him to the religion.
(Of course, it wasn’t necessarily consciously designed for this purpose, but that doesn’t prevent the purpose from being served.)
That’s part of the point. If you want strong changes in society than you need to do movement building. That means you don’t focus on outsiders but on strengthing the commitment inside the movement.
Mormons who spent 2 years doing their mission are extreme.
Though they’re only really extreme about a few things—their Mormonism and some personal restraint (e.g., no alcohol, etc.) that serves religious purposes. They’re otherwise quite normal people.
And I think religious weirdness is one of the kinds of weirdness that people see past the most easily.
I’m not saying that one shouldn’t try to be extreme, but that one should (if one aims at public advocacy) try to be extreme in only a few things.
It’s pretty common for groups to treat individual restraint in the context of group lack-of-restraint as a violation of group norms, though “radical” is rarely the word used. Does that seem insane to you more generally (and if so, can you say more about why)?
If not, I suspect “extreme” has multiple definitions in this discussion and would be best dropped in favor of more precise phrases.
It’s pretty common for groups to treat individual restraint in the context of group lack-of-restraint as a violation of group norms, though “radical” is rarely the word used. Does that seem insane to you more generally (and if so, can you say more about why)?
Yes. That seems insane to me.
Self restraint is applied self control. It is a virtue and is something to be admired, so long as what as one is restraining one’s self for some benefit, not needlessly (though personally, I have respect for all forms of restraint, even if they are needless, e.g. religiously motivated celibacy, in the same way I have respect for the courage of suicide bombers).
Is alcohol consumption restraint without benefit? No. Alcohol is a poison that limits one’s faculties in small amounts, with detrimental health effects, in large doses.
A friend, was sharing with me the other day that he doesn’t like the culture of...I’m not sure what to call it...knowing overindulgence? He gave the example of the half joking veneration of bacon something that everyone loves and always wants more of, as if to say “I know it’s unhealthy, but that’s why we love it” so much.
I hear people say, “I don’t eat healthy food”, and in the culture we live in, that is an acceptable thing to say, where to me it sounds like an admission that you lack self control, but instead of acknowledging it as a problem, and working on it, glancing over it with a laugh.
I am a vegetarian. I once sat down for a meal with a friend and my sister. The friend asked my sister if she was a vegetarian. My sister said she wasn’t. The friend said (again, half joking), “Good”, as if vegetarianism is a character flaw: real people love meat. I confronted her about it later, and said that that bothered me. I know not everyone is a vegetarian, and it is each person’s own choice to weigh the costs and benefits to decide for themselves, but there are many, many good reason to practice some kind of meat-restriction, from the ecological, to the moral, to simple health. I won’t tolerate my friend, acting as if not eating meat means there is something wrong with you..
It feels to me, and maybe I’m projecting, that not everyone is up for making hard choices*, but instead of owning up to that, we have built a culture that revels in overindulgence. The social pressure pushes in the wrong direction.
It’s weird to not drink. It’s weird to not eat meat. It’s weird to put to much effort into staying healthy. It’s weird to give a significant portion of your income to save lives. Those are just obviously (to me) the right thing to do.
It seems to me that the way we treat smoking is about right. Mostly, we let smokers make their own choices, and don’t hold those choices against them as individuals. However, there is also a social undercurrent of, “smoking is disgusting” or at least “smoking is stupid; if you don’t smoke, don’t start.” There is a mild social pressure for people to stop smoking, as opposed to someone getting weird looks if they turn down a cigarette (the way I do now, if I turn down a cookie).
This is a subjective, semi-rant and I’m expressing my opinion. Consider this an elaboration on the off-hand comment above, and feel free to challenge me if I’m wrong.
I’m self conscious about the fact that I’m implicitly saying that I’m strong enough to make those hard choices, but I’m saying it anyway.
I think these fall under the group that I admire the way I admire the courage of suicide bombers. I admire the dedication, but I think they are insane for other reasons.
Mormon polygamy is not normal. Mormons donating 10% of their income also isn’t normal. Mormonism has enough impact on a person that some Mormons can identify other Mormons.
And I think religious weirdness is one of the kinds of weirdness that people see past the most easily.
The thing that distinguishes religious weirdness is that it comes from a highly motivated place and isn’t a random whim.
if one aims at public advocacy
I’m not exactly sure what you mean with “public advocacy”.
Mormons don’t practice polygamy anymore, and they haven’t for a long time (except for small ‘unofficial’ groups). Most Mormons I know feel pretty weird about it themselves.
Mormon polygamy is not normal. Mormons donating 10% of their income also isn’t normal.
Good point. But, if I recall correctly, don’t they go to a good amount of length to not talk about these things a lot?
-
The thing that distinguishes religious weirdness is that it comes from a highly motivated place and isn’t a random whim.
I don’t think it’s just a highly motivated place, but rather a highly motivated place that other people can easily verify as highly motivated and relate to.
-
I’m not exactly sure what you mean with “public advocacy”.
Bringing up an ingroup idea with people outside your ingroup.
For example, I’d love it if people ate less meat. So I might bring that up with people, as the topic arises, and advocate for it (i.e., tell them why I think not eating meat is better). I still envision it as a two-way discussion where I’m open to the idea of being wrong, but I’d like them to be less affected by certain biases (like weirdness) if possible.
I don’t think a conversation at a birthday of a friend qualifies as “public” in the traditional sense.
So I might bring that up with people, as the topic arises, and advocate for it (i.e., tell them why I think not eating meat is better).
I think that’s seldom the most straightforward way for changing people through personal conversation. It makes much more sense to ask a lot of questions and target your communication at other person,
Status also matters. Sometimes doing something weird lower your status other time it raises it. It always makes sense to look at the individual situation.
I don’t think a conversation at a birthday of a friend qualifies as “public” in the traditional sense.
What did you have in mind? I think this advice applies even more so to “public” venues in the traditional sense (e.g., blogging for general audiences).
Nerds are very often too shy. They are not willing to go to the extreme. Radical feminism has a lot of influence on our society and plenty of members of that community don’t hold back at all.
Bending your own views to be avoid offending other people leads to being perceive as inconfident. It’s not authentic. That’s bad for movement building.
I think you are making a mistake if you treat the goal of every project as being about affecting public policy. Quite often you don’t need a majority. It’s much better to have a small group of strongly committed people then a large group that’s only lukewarm committed.
Mormons who spent 2 years doing their mission are extreme. Mormonism is growing really fast while less extreme Christian groups don’t grow. Groups that advocate extreme positions give their members a feeling that they are special. They are not boring.
In the scarce attention economy of the 21st century being boring is one of the worst things you can do if you want to speak to a lot of people.
Mormon missions are not primaritly there to gain converts. They are there to force the Mormon to make a commitment of time and resources to Mormonism so that the sunk costs would psychologically tie him to the religion.
(Of course, it wasn’t necessarily consciously designed for this purpose, but that doesn’t prevent the purpose from being served.)
That’s part of the point. If you want strong changes in society than you need to do movement building. That means you don’t focus on outsiders but on strengthing the commitment inside the movement.
Though they’re only really extreme about a few things—their Mormonism and some personal restraint (e.g., no alcohol, etc.) that serves religious purposes. They’re otherwise quite normal people.
And I think religious weirdness is one of the kinds of weirdness that people see past the most easily.
I’m not saying that one shouldn’t try to be extreme, but that one should (if one aims at public advocacy) try to be extreme in only a few things.
It seems borderline-literally insane to me that “personal restraint” is “extreme” and marks one as a radical.
It’s pretty common for groups to treat individual restraint in the context of group lack-of-restraint as a violation of group norms, though “radical” is rarely the word used. Does that seem insane to you more generally (and if so, can you say more about why)?
If not, I suspect “extreme” has multiple definitions in this discussion and would be best dropped in favor of more precise phrases.
Yes. That seems insane to me.
Self restraint is applied self control. It is a virtue and is something to be admired, so long as what as one is restraining one’s self for some benefit, not needlessly (though personally, I have respect for all forms of restraint, even if they are needless, e.g. religiously motivated celibacy, in the same way I have respect for the courage of suicide bombers).
Is alcohol consumption restraint without benefit? No. Alcohol is a poison that limits one’s faculties in small amounts, with detrimental health effects, in large doses.
A friend, was sharing with me the other day that he doesn’t like the culture of...I’m not sure what to call it...knowing overindulgence? He gave the example of the half joking veneration of bacon something that everyone loves and always wants more of, as if to say “I know it’s unhealthy, but that’s why we love it” so much.
I hear people say, “I don’t eat healthy food”, and in the culture we live in, that is an acceptable thing to say, where to me it sounds like an admission that you lack self control, but instead of acknowledging it as a problem, and working on it, glancing over it with a laugh.
I am a vegetarian. I once sat down for a meal with a friend and my sister. The friend asked my sister if she was a vegetarian. My sister said she wasn’t. The friend said (again, half joking), “Good”, as if vegetarianism is a character flaw: real people love meat. I confronted her about it later, and said that that bothered me. I know not everyone is a vegetarian, and it is each person’s own choice to weigh the costs and benefits to decide for themselves, but there are many, many good reason to practice some kind of meat-restriction, from the ecological, to the moral, to simple health. I won’t tolerate my friend, acting as if not eating meat means there is something wrong with you..
It feels to me, and maybe I’m projecting, that not everyone is up for making hard choices*, but instead of owning up to that, we have built a culture that revels in overindulgence. The social pressure pushes in the wrong direction.
It’s weird to not drink. It’s weird to not eat meat. It’s weird to put to much effort into staying healthy. It’s weird to give a significant portion of your income to save lives. Those are just obviously (to me) the right thing to do.
It seems to me that the way we treat smoking is about right. Mostly, we let smokers make their own choices, and don’t hold those choices against them as individuals. However, there is also a social undercurrent of, “smoking is disgusting” or at least “smoking is stupid; if you don’t smoke, don’t start.” There is a mild social pressure for people to stop smoking, as opposed to someone getting weird looks if they turn down a cigarette (the way I do now, if I turn down a cookie).
This is a subjective, semi-rant and I’m expressing my opinion. Consider this an elaboration on the off-hand comment above, and feel free to challenge me if I’m wrong.
I’m self conscious about the fact that I’m implicitly saying that I’m strong enough to make those hard choices, but I’m saying it anyway.
(nods) Which is exactly what I asked for; thank you.
I think you’re using a non-standard definition of “insane,” but not an indefensible one.
Depends on what kind. The one that runs counter to the prevailing social norms does mark one as a radical.
You can treat incluses as people who practice “personal restraint” :-/
I think these fall under the group that I admire the way I admire the courage of suicide bombers. I admire the dedication, but I think they are insane for other reasons.
Mormon polygamy is not normal. Mormons donating 10% of their income also isn’t normal. Mormonism has enough impact on a person that some Mormons can identify other Mormons.
The thing that distinguishes religious weirdness is that it comes from a highly motivated place and isn’t a random whim.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean with “public advocacy”.
Mormons don’t practice polygamy anymore, and they haven’t for a long time (except for small ‘unofficial’ groups). Most Mormons I know feel pretty weird about it themselves.
Good point. But, if I recall correctly, don’t they go to a good amount of length to not talk about these things a lot?
-
I don’t think it’s just a highly motivated place, but rather a highly motivated place that other people can easily verify as highly motivated and relate to.
-
Bringing up an ingroup idea with people outside your ingroup.
For example, I’d love it if people ate less meat. So I might bring that up with people, as the topic arises, and advocate for it (i.e., tell them why I think not eating meat is better). I still envision it as a two-way discussion where I’m open to the idea of being wrong, but I’d like them to be less affected by certain biases (like weirdness) if possible.
I don’t think a conversation at a birthday of a friend qualifies as “public” in the traditional sense.
I think that’s seldom the most straightforward way for changing people through personal conversation. It makes much more sense to ask a lot of questions and target your communication at other person,
Status also matters. Sometimes doing something weird lower your status other time it raises it. It always makes sense to look at the individual situation.
What did you have in mind? I think this advice applies even more so to “public” venues in the traditional sense (e.g., blogging for general audiences).