JoeW

Karma: 341

JoeW 20 May 2015 9:16 UTC
5 points
0
on: How my social skills went from horrible to mediocre
(b) A woman sends signals of romantic interest, either accidentally, or whimsically. I mistakenly assume that she’s carefully deliberating over the possibility of dating me, as I would be in her position. I decide to express interest in her.

She hasn’t been thinking about whether or not she’d like to date me at all, she was instead engaging in casual preliminary flirting and/or wasn’t carefully guarding against accidentally sending signals of romantic interest. So from her point of view it looks like “This guy expressed romantic interest in me without paying attention to how I’m feeling.” She reactively reprimands me, or cuts contact with me, usually with connotations (even if slight) that I might not respect her boundaries.

I mistakenly think that she had carefully deliberated on how to respond to my expression of romantic interest. So I mistakenly perceive the false dichotomy:
```
 I'm a delusional potential rapist, and she sees this.
I'm not a delusional potential rapist, she knows that she's made me feel like I might be one. The woman who I loved has turned out to have so little empathy that she doesn't mind the fact that she's done this.
```
Both of these possibilities are extremely upsetting, and I fall into severe depression, totally oblivious to the fact that she was behaving in a reactive way and that her reaction is neither evidence that I’m a potential rapist, nor evidence that she doesn’t mind me feeling like a potential rapist.
I am not a “Social Justice Warrior” (more a social justice wizard/rogue) but I am considering responding to this as someone who has tried to multiclass in both rationality and social justice.

My previous forays in this direction on LW (admittedly not very skilled or persuasive) were not well received. Is there interest in discussing social justice fails as a subset of social skill fails and thus as rationality fails?

JoeW 29 Nov 2012 22:18 UTC
6 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
Heh, in fact I started but then deleted as a derail some discussion of problems in activist and academic discussions of sexual orientation—what are we to make of someone whose claimed orientation (identification) does not match their current and past behaviour, which might in turn be different again to their stated actual preferences.

I’m not current in my academic reading of sexuality, but when I was, anyone researching from a public health perspective went with behaviour, while psychologists and sociologists were split between identification and preference.

Queer activism seems to have generally gone with identification as primary, although I’m not as current there as I used to be. The trumping argument there was actually precisely your situation, where to accept behaviour as primary meant that no virgins had any orientation, and that does not agree with our intuitions or most peoples’ personal experiences.

There’s also a bi-activism point which says that position means the only “true” bisexuals are people engaged in mixed-gender group sex. (This is intended as reductio ad absurdem but I’ve heard people use it seriously.)

Poly seems to be more complicated still, q.v. distinctions between swinging, “monogamish”, open relationships, polyfidelity and polyamory. I know multiple examples of dyadic couples who regularly have sex with other people but identify as monogamous, and of couples who aren’t currently involved with anyone else, aren’t looking, but are firm in their poly identification.

I guess my TL;DR is that I’m entirely untroubled by an apparent difference between preference and practice, and if the survey had asked similar questions about sexual orientation preference & practice, we would have seen “discrepancies” there too.

JoeW 29 Nov 2012 21:46 UTC
2 points
in reply to: gwillen’s comment on: 2012 Survey Results
TL;DR—I think it’s not that simple.

Opinion is divided as to whether poly is an orientation or a lifestyle (something one is vs. something one does).

i.e. saying someone with no partners is practising neither mono nor poly is like saying someone with no partners is not currently engaged in homo-/bi-/hetero-sexuality. (However I would accept a claim that they were engaged in asexuality.)

JoeW 12 Sep 2012 5:23 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Ah, thank you, you’ve just crystalised some thoughts for me.

I think my definition of intersectional social justice now includes explicit precommitment to bypassing & minimising defensiveness. It’s as valued, encouraged and sought after as bypassing & minimising irrational biases are here.

Your comment prompted this when I realised that for me, external calls for me to get past my defensiveness cause very similar frustration to when I feel like I’m being told to be more patient/tolerant/self-effacing than I think is reasonable. It may be that it works similarly for you and others, too.

More specifically, no, no-one is supposed to show unlimited patience; minorities do not automatically “win” (qv. situational & relative privilege, plus lack of privilege does not confer a magical anti-jerk field). However we are all asked to do the work in acknowledging any defensiveness and its downstream reactions & responses.

I have other early ideas about defensiveness as a cognitive bias, too. :)

JoeW 11 Sep 2012 13:55 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Barry_Cotter’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Good points, thank you.

JoeW 11 Sep 2012 13:54 UTC
4 points
in reply to: J_Taylor’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
I wish I’d graduated from the Cooperative Conspiracy before attempting these arguments. :)

Yes, I see what you say and agree. Updating.

JoeW 11 Sep 2012 13:53 UTC
5 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Oh my, I hadn’t read that Wiki page, that’s not very useful no.

The answer from bogus doesn’t seem incorrect to me, but it seems incomplete. It’s not just a call for cooperation but for rejecting single-issue reductionism, which fails to address (sufficiently or at all) matters such as relative privilege (e.g. women of colour face additional issues that white women do not) or situational privilege (localised exceptions to more global privilege divisions, such as some public health policies discriminating against men.

The claim is engaging in any one issue of social justice without considering the others alienates allies due to hypocrisy (e.g. where relative privilege recapitulates inequalities in wider society). First-wave feminism has been heavily criticised for being a feminism of middle-class educated white women, for instance, just as 1970s sexuality movements have been criticised for being largely run by white men.

TL;DR might be “utility functions take more than one argument” and “don’t burn your allies—you’ll also burn yourself”.

JoeW 10 Sep 2012 14:45 UTC
2 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
That was my question though, albeit not stated so clearly: is it really an opportunity cost?

Does fetishising intelligence, sex positivity, communicative effectiveness, intersectional social justice, and active informed consent really turn off mainstream conventional women? Serious question; I seldom have relationships or sex outside that constellation of characteristics.

JoeW 10 Sep 2012 14:11 UTC
3 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
What’s the downside?

Adopting PUA techniques and values: arguably improves sex and/or relationship outcomes with some women. Visibly adopting and affiliating with PUA: definitely worsen sex and/or relationship outcomes with some (other but not wholly disjoint set of) women.

Addressing those perceptions might offset some of the latter (certain) penalty, and it’s not clear to me that it would come at any reduction to the former (possible) bonus.

I’m still reading the “PUA at its best” links so I don’t know enough to say how costly this approach is. Perhaps you’re saying you think it’s better to cut your losses, completely give up on any women alienated by PUA and focus on those who don’t notice or don’t care?

JoeW 10 Sep 2012 14:01 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy

Moreover acting as if you need to justify yourself (or your group) to others already represents a significant loss of standing.

[boggled] Isn’t that what we’re all doing here at LW? Arguing and justifying our arguments? Did you just lower your standing with your justification? At time of writing I see quite the reverse.

JoeW 10 Sep 2012 10:18 UTC
0 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
I am willing to attempt a separate Discussion post that attempts to put together specific, practical, measurable “do this (and here’s why)” techniques from a rationalist approach. (Or as close as possible; there won’t be a lot of peer-reviewed scholarly research here, but there is some.)

If there’s interest in this, I’d welcome assistance and critiques. I’m not stonewalling but I’m feeling we’ve wandered a bit too far from the OP.

JoeW 10 Sep 2012 10:14 UTC
3 points
in reply to: drethelin’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy

(you wouldn’t even have thought to make this accusation here if SilasBarta was female and Eliezer was the target)

Agreed, and I think that says something interesting and useful. Symmetry is not a useful tool here.

If there’s broader interest in seeing some attempt at a rationalist view of privilege I’m keen to get whatever help is available, and take it to a separate Discussion.

JoeW 9 Sep 2012 11:41 UTC
3 points
in reply to: bogus’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Just confirming: are you disagreeing because link posited risk of escalation to assault which I agree seems impossible in a purely online context?

I drew the analogy because it called out the toxic effects on a community, and that in many ways the toxicity is not that there was a creeper, but that there is much signalling in their support that has follow-on effects.

Assuming those claimed signalling secondary losses are correct, I don’t see anything specific to an online context that would be immune. The “risk of escalation” discussed there seems severable from its other points.

JoeW 9 Sep 2012 10:53 UTC
1 point
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
I suspect if I were LW-high-status, I could politely point out that while we’ve both argued from assertions, one of us has expanded on their assertion, and one of us has not.

Unless you mean “that linked post does not discuss LW or any of the individuals you reference, so claiming it specifically discusses exactly this scenario is trivially false”? I have no objection to curbing my hyperbole with an edit.

I take from your vehemence that your disagreement is more fundamental though. Do you have more words there you’re willing to add, here or in PM?

JoeW 9 Sep 2012 10:37 UTC
−9 points
in reply to: bogus’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Oh the irony. The last link in the OP specifically discusses exactly this scenario.

While the outcome for a woman targeted by a man like this is poor, the damage done to the group by all the other men staying silent (or outright supporting him) is huge. Really, this isn’t even buried in the comments, this is the whole point of the two letters discussed in that link.

I can’t speak to whether there are problems of this sort in LW meetups, but right here is our evidence of it here in LW comments.

I understand concerns about censorship, arbitrary moderation, special treatment, etc, but everyone who downvoted Alicorn and upvoted wedrifid here has also sent a message of tacit support for SilasBarta and a very clear message to any other woman here.

From my link above, edited:

Step 1: A creepy dude does creepy, entitled shit and makes women feel unsafe {in LW}

Step 2: The women speak up about it {in LW}

Step 3: It gets written off as “not a big deal” or “he probably didn’t mean it” or “he’s not a bad guy, really.” {...}

Step 4: Everyone is worried about hurting creepy dude’s feelings or making it weird for creepy dude. Better yet, everyone is worried about how the other dudes in the friend group will feel if they are called out for enabling creepy dude. Women are worried that if they push the issue, that the entire friend group will side with creepy dude or that they’ll be blamed for causing “drama.” {...}

Step 5: Creepy dude creeps on with his creepy self. He’s learned that there are no real (i.e. “disapproval & pushback from dudes and dude society”) consequences to his actions. Women feel creeped out and unsafe. Some of them decide to take a firm stand against creeping and not {participate in LW} anymore. {...} Some of the woman decide to just quietly put up with it, because they’ve learned that no one will really side with them and it’s easier to go along than to lose one’s entire community. The whole group works around this missing stair.

The Geek Social Fallacies seem rather apt here, too.

(Edit to fix square bracket use)

JoeW 9 Sep 2012 8:38 UTC
3 points
in reply to: waveman’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Actually that’s a very useful and powerful analogy because it also references ingroup vs. outgroup asymmetry, and how that is a driver for power imbalance and perceptions.

JoeW 9 Sep 2012 8:21 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Despard’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
This could be something that’s kicked around in Discussions for a while perhaps?

Related, I’d like to see defensiveness discussed through the lens of cognitive bias. It has wide impact; it can be improved; improving it likewise has wide impact on one’s life. I think it’s one of those meta-levels of improvement where upgrades significantly affect our ability to upgrade many other things.

JoeW 9 Sep 2012 8:05 UTC
3 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
I find I agree with everything you’ve said, yet I’m still wondering what happens to the poor person whose foot has been stood on.

Perhaps I’m just restating and agreeing with “no obligation to fix others”, but the comments in the CaptainAwkward link address this specifically: the approach you describe still makes the person transgressing boundaries the focus of our attention and response. I find that caring about why someone routinely steps on feet is quite low on my list, and (perhaps this is my main point) something I’m only willing to invest resources in once they (1) stop stepping on people’s feet and (2) agree and acknowledge they shouldn’t be stepping on feet.

I’m also a bit skeptical of the idea you peripherally touch on, but we’re seeing in a lot of the comments in this post, that avoiding the “creeper” equivalent on stepping on toes is a tough bar to clear and is unfair to ask of someone with deficits in social/people/communication skills. I think it’s very telling that such people seldom seem to get into boundary-related trouble with anyone they recognise as more powerful than them (law enforcement; airport security; workplace bosses).

There was that study about (average, neurotypical) men’s supposed deficits in reading indirect communication compared to women that found that it’s basically rubbish—they can do it when they think they have to, and they don’t with women because they think they don’t have to. (Link is to non-academic summary, but has the links to the journal articles.)

I’m wandering well past your point here but you reminded me of this. :)

JoeW 9 Sep 2012 7:53 UTC
2 points
in reply to: pjeby’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
Thank you, I’ll take a look.

EDIT: Have read those links several times and digested them over the last few days. I am poking at why the third one bothers me (I think it’s the “it’s in their nature” statement).

Certainly the first two are good counter-examples to my earlier impressions. Thank you again.

JoeW 8 Sep 2012 12:13 UTC
5 points
in reply to: tmgerbich’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy
I do agree with everything you say here.

I say in another reply here that I’m a fan of reframing for active consent and opt-in. I don’t ask “can I give you a hug” for precisely the reasons you say.

If it’s not clear to me if we’re on hugging terms or not, then I assume we’re not. Cost to me if wrong about that = low.

If I have high confidence that we’re on hugging terms, but I don’t know if you feel like it right now, and I have high confidence that we’re on terms where asking this is ok, I’ll ask “would you like me to hug you?” That’s an implied “at this particular time”, and not used for escalating from non-hugging to hugging. If I have doubt on any of these points, I don’t ask. Cost to me if I’m wrong about that = low.

Perhaps it asks a lot in terms of social/people/communication skills to model if processing the question will be costly, or if the cost to them is high for me asking when perhaps I shouldn’t have. It doesn’t particularly seem so, to me.

TL;DR : costs to you in me asking when I shouldn’t are higher than the costs to me of not asking when it would’ve been ok. I’m ok with that asymmetry—privilege is profoundly asymmetric.