You know, I ″still″ can’t get the hand of joking. Not telling jokes or using witticisms, but, you know, the taunting, the stealth insults, the “in good fun” stuff. Maybe I’m working under Law Of Conservation Of Detail, but I tend to process them as unwarranted, intentional insults, made by people who won’t openly engage you, and that come entirely out of the blue and can’t be refuted in less than a small paragraph. Which is obviously not a witty response and marks you as unfunny and “someone who takes themselves too seriously”. This really exasperates and confuses me.
The point isn’t to refute but to “give as good as you get”. Humor is more social norm exploration than pure entertainment. Ribbing subtly asserts the pecking order, you’ll notice this when you step back and watch the patterns.
the quintessential “geek” not “getting” it usually comes about when you are miscalibrated because you don’t know the norms.
“Give as good as you get”… okay, confused non-native English speaker googles… “If you give as good as you get, you are prepared to treat people as badly as they treat you and to fight for what you believe.”. Aha. I actually know that, it’s just that I never ever felt the need to do that, I basically treat everybody as my equals. No, actually I lie, I have felt the temptation to snark on people I thought weaker, but I felt so guilty at the prospect of hurting their feelings and reinforcing their low self-esteem position, I just avoid these people altogether. Especially if they admire me or look up to me, I feel very tempted to bring them further down, and I find that side of me repulsive. Perhaps I am Completely Missing The Point and I should go on and verbally abuse weaklings?
Andl, of course the point isn’t to refute… unless you’re on a formal debate, but given time constraints pointing out the bullshit in the opposing party’s argument, if they are twisty enough, can waste so much time you don’t get to develop yours. That’s a dilemma I constantly face in Debate Club, and I’m conflicted about the loss of credibility bullshitting back wittily but inaccurately may cause...
Back to “friendly” socializing: In general, I kinda suck at saying stuff I know isn’t true, and going for someone’s masculinity or for other sources of their self-esteem is something that really doesn’t come naturally to me. Back in the old nerdy days I used to clam up in indignation (or sheepish shocked sadness depending on how much I knew the person appreciated me: I mean, someone who’s a true friend, and is loyal, and helpful, and nice, and suddenly out of the blue and for no reason at all Attacks Your Weak Point For Massive Damage). Nowadays I just use a wary “are you fucking kidding me” face and, if the other person keeps it up, some dry, deadpan put down heavily inspired in Batman and Quirrelmort (I only wish I could emulate the level of threat post-Azkaban Quirrelmort exuded). (Yes, much of my social repertoire is taken directly from fictional characters.)
But that’s not the right way to go about it. I need to be more familiar, closer, and faster. Deadpan snarking is a good defense mechanism, but makes you appear stuck up, pompous, and with a superiority complex, and that’s not the image I want to give...
So, do we have news of anyone throughly exploring “ribbing” and the mechanisms thereof?
Back to “friendly” socializing: In general, I kinda suck at saying stuff I know isn’t true, and going for someone’s masculinity or for other sources of their self-esteem is something that really doesn’t come naturally to me. Back in the old nerdy days I used to clam up in indignation (or sheepish shocked sadness depending on how much I knew the person appreciated me: I mean, someone who’s a true friend, and is loyal, and helpful, and nice, and suddenly out of the blue and for no reason at all Attacks Your Weak Point For Massive Damage). Nowadays I just use a wary “are you fucking kidding me” face and, if the other person keeps it up, some dry, deadpan put down heavily inspired in Batman and Quirrelmort (I only wish I could emulate the level of threat post-Azkaban Quirrelmort exuded). (Yes, much of my social repertoire is taken directly from fictional characters.)
I recognize these behaviors as things that I did in such situations when I was younger. Here’s what helped me get over that: I realized that, for the most part, people can only embarrass you if you agree to be embarrassed. It’s much easier for me to interact in a teasing environment now that I’ve simply stopped taking it so seriously.
The underlying principle is that everyone has embarrassing stories and characteristics. Participating in making fun of these things, both yours and others’, is a way to signal trust and belonging to the other people in the group. The point of this kind of interaction isn’t to be cruel or mean; it’s that not being able to talk about sensitive topics makes you seem like a member of the out-group. Members of the in-group will generally be less offended by a teasing remark made by one of their own than by the same remark made by someone outside of the group, so matching those differing levels of offense demonstrates your familiarity with the in-group.
Obviously, not becoming embarrassed or offended is easier said than done. I recommend trying not to display or act on the feeling even if you have it. As I worked on doing this, the feeling itself became much less prevalent.
Also, it’s important to keep track of which topics are off-limits even for the in-group. People may have issues that are simply too sensitive for the usual teasing, and failing to realize that is another signal of lack of familiarity with the group members, and therefore out-group status.
You definitely should read Impro and maybe take a class on improvisational theater if you can. Being status blind is a huge handicap that I’m not sure can be overcome. You just have to learn.
There’s a reason that nerds have trouble succeeding at social excellence when trying to reason about it from scratch. This stuff is extremely complicated and normal people are relying on built in heuristics to do much of the work.
The first 2 seasons of the TV show Entourage seems to be a good examination of how extraverts do teasing (plus it is a lot of fun to watch). Since the show is inspired by real people (actor Mark Wahlberg and some of his friends and associates) and since every episode has at least one famous Hollywood personality playing themselves, it seems to hew closer to real life than most scripted TV does.
I don’t understand sarcasm. I mean, I know what it is and everything, and I can participate in a sarcastic exchange if I’m expecting it, but if I’m not paying attention, a remark meant to be sarcastic gets automatically processed as serious, and I respond defensively. Various people over the years have noticed this and used it to their own amusement. (Which I don’t really mind. I was ignored enough as a kid that even just being teased is a sign of social inclusion for me and makes me feel warm and fuzzy.)
A useful response, particularly given a lack of talent for witty retorts and a personal distaste for the more aggressive fringe of jokes at others expense is to completely ignore them. Not in the sense of a trite “there, there, it doesn’t matter you’ll be ok Raw Power”, but in the sense of the holding a strong frame that can potentially completely undercut and marginalize them if done well. It does require the resilience and self control to completely suppress any facial expression indication that you were vulnerable to the attack and to not lose track of whatever your goal was in the conversation. It usually works best of you open or continue a completely unrelated thread with someone else in the vicinity.
I used to have the same attitude toward teasing and joking that you do. I still do, actually, in many situations, but I’ve loosened up about it a bit since I realized that some significant subset of it is a form of countersignaling. That doesn’t mean it’s always benign, even when it’s meant that way—one obvious failure mode that I run into is when a particular one of my acquaintances uses it to signal that they think I should trust them, when they have not actually earned my trust, and winds up causing me to trust them less—but some of it is, and having a framework to think about whether it’s benign or not seems to make it less frustrating overall.
You know, I ″still″ can’t get the hand of joking. Not telling jokes or using witticisms, but, you know, the taunting, the stealth insults, the “in good fun” stuff. Maybe I’m working under Law Of Conservation Of Detail, but I tend to process them as unwarranted, intentional insults, made by people who won’t openly engage you, and that come entirely out of the blue and can’t be refuted in less than a small paragraph. Which is obviously not a witty response and marks you as unfunny and “someone who takes themselves too seriously”. This really exasperates and confuses me.
The point isn’t to refute but to “give as good as you get”. Humor is more social norm exploration than pure entertainment. Ribbing subtly asserts the pecking order, you’ll notice this when you step back and watch the patterns.
the quintessential “geek” not “getting” it usually comes about when you are miscalibrated because you don’t know the norms.
Good example, think about where the humor is derived from in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1vY2J9FTnE
“Give as good as you get”… okay, confused non-native English speaker googles… “If you give as good as you get, you are prepared to treat people as badly as they treat you and to fight for what you believe.”. Aha. I actually know that, it’s just that I never ever felt the need to do that, I basically treat everybody as my equals. No, actually I lie, I have felt the temptation to snark on people I thought weaker, but I felt so guilty at the prospect of hurting their feelings and reinforcing their low self-esteem position, I just avoid these people altogether. Especially if they admire me or look up to me, I feel very tempted to bring them further down, and I find that side of me repulsive. Perhaps I am Completely Missing The Point and I should go on and verbally abuse weaklings?
Andl, of course the point isn’t to refute… unless you’re on a formal debate, but given time constraints pointing out the bullshit in the opposing party’s argument, if they are twisty enough, can waste so much time you don’t get to develop yours. That’s a dilemma I constantly face in Debate Club, and I’m conflicted about the loss of credibility bullshitting back wittily but inaccurately may cause...
Back to “friendly” socializing: In general, I kinda suck at saying stuff I know isn’t true, and going for someone’s masculinity or for other sources of their self-esteem is something that really doesn’t come naturally to me. Back in the old nerdy days I used to clam up in indignation (or sheepish shocked sadness depending on how much I knew the person appreciated me: I mean, someone who’s a true friend, and is loyal, and helpful, and nice, and suddenly out of the blue and for no reason at all Attacks Your Weak Point For Massive Damage). Nowadays I just use a wary “are you fucking kidding me” face and, if the other person keeps it up, some dry, deadpan put down heavily inspired in Batman and Quirrelmort (I only wish I could emulate the level of threat post-Azkaban Quirrelmort exuded). (Yes, much of my social repertoire is taken directly from fictional characters.)
But that’s not the right way to go about it. I need to be more familiar, closer, and faster. Deadpan snarking is a good defense mechanism, but makes you appear stuck up, pompous, and with a superiority complex, and that’s not the image I want to give...
So, do we have news of anyone throughly exploring “ribbing” and the mechanisms thereof?
I recognize these behaviors as things that I did in such situations when I was younger. Here’s what helped me get over that: I realized that, for the most part, people can only embarrass you if you agree to be embarrassed. It’s much easier for me to interact in a teasing environment now that I’ve simply stopped taking it so seriously.
The underlying principle is that everyone has embarrassing stories and characteristics. Participating in making fun of these things, both yours and others’, is a way to signal trust and belonging to the other people in the group. The point of this kind of interaction isn’t to be cruel or mean; it’s that not being able to talk about sensitive topics makes you seem like a member of the out-group. Members of the in-group will generally be less offended by a teasing remark made by one of their own than by the same remark made by someone outside of the group, so matching those differing levels of offense demonstrates your familiarity with the in-group.
Obviously, not becoming embarrassed or offended is easier said than done. I recommend trying not to display or act on the feeling even if you have it. As I worked on doing this, the feeling itself became much less prevalent.
Also, it’s important to keep track of which topics are off-limits even for the in-group. People may have issues that are simply too sensitive for the usual teasing, and failing to realize that is another signal of lack of familiarity with the group members, and therefore out-group status.
You definitely should read Impro and maybe take a class on improvisational theater if you can. Being status blind is a huge handicap that I’m not sure can be overcome. You just have to learn.
http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith-Johnstone/dp/0878301178
Japanese is nice in this regard because they actually have special words and language used to refer to people of significantly higher or lower status.
Also: teasing generally involves saying things you both know isn’t true and you have mutual knowledge that the other knows you know it isn’t true.
Great talk by Pinker about mutual knowledge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU
There’s a reason that nerds have trouble succeeding at social excellence when trying to reason about it from scratch. This stuff is extremely complicated and normal people are relying on built in heuristics to do much of the work.
The first 2 seasons of the TV show Entourage seems to be a good examination of how extraverts do teasing (plus it is a lot of fun to watch). Since the show is inspired by real people (actor Mark Wahlberg and some of his friends and associates) and since every episode has at least one famous Hollywood personality playing themselves, it seems to hew closer to real life than most scripted TV does.
I don’t understand sarcasm. I mean, I know what it is and everything, and I can participate in a sarcastic exchange if I’m expecting it, but if I’m not paying attention, a remark meant to be sarcastic gets automatically processed as serious, and I respond defensively. Various people over the years have noticed this and used it to their own amusement. (Which I don’t really mind. I was ignored enough as a kid that even just being teased is a sign of social inclusion for me and makes me feel warm and fuzzy.)
A useful response, particularly given a lack of talent for witty retorts and a personal distaste for the more aggressive fringe of jokes at others expense is to completely ignore them. Not in the sense of a trite “there, there, it doesn’t matter you’ll be ok Raw Power”, but in the sense of the holding a strong frame that can potentially completely undercut and marginalize them if done well. It does require the resilience and self control to completely suppress any facial expression indication that you were vulnerable to the attack and to not lose track of whatever your goal was in the conversation. It usually works best of you open or continue a completely unrelated thread with someone else in the vicinity.
I used to have the same attitude toward teasing and joking that you do. I still do, actually, in many situations, but I’ve loosened up about it a bit since I realized that some significant subset of it is a form of countersignaling. That doesn’t mean it’s always benign, even when it’s meant that way—one obvious failure mode that I run into is when a particular one of my acquaintances uses it to signal that they think I should trust them, when they have not actually earned my trust, and winds up causing me to trust them less—but some of it is, and having a framework to think about whether it’s benign or not seems to make it less frustrating overall.