Error Correction Vs. Pleasant Social Spaces

[nemorathwald]

The different social rules that apply to different settings have occupied my thoughts for the past several days. It has been noticed that I tend to be much more gentle and conciliatory face-to-face than in the written word. One has gone to far as to describe my words as "socially feral." That would only be true if I had spoken the words while hobnobbing at a party or a church. That's where people come together for pleasant experiences and fellowship, and so the rules of the social setting are whatever facilitates that.

The reason I am so seldom combative in person is that those I know from the above social settings seldom come together for the purposes of getting something done effectively. When someone suggested Orson Scott Card as a Guest of Honor for a convention, I made my views clear and did not pull punches for the sake of politeness. It was not a party where we don't want to spoil the mood; it was decision-making time. It's well and good to try to speak the truth in a pleasant way, but they sometimes don't fit together.

David Brin has an article here that is astonishing in its insight into this matter and inspired many of these thoughts. A different set of social rules apply in competitive spaces which exist to test adversaries against each other: the courtroom, the free market, and the scientific peer-review/conference are some examples. These arenas are soaked in the blood of ideas that have been tested against each other. It has partially replaced evolution; ideas now die in our place.

It sounds unpleasant, but we all benefit from it. Not only do we lose if error goes unchallenged, we stifle in mind-controlled oppression when our entire world is a place where we are not allowed to call each other on our bullshit. For instance, saramichigan commented to my recent thread to say "Dang, Matt. You've got some balls. You say the things I only think." Within the appropriate social space, this is a compliment. From this comment, it appears brendand is in full possession of the social skill of detecting when he is in one social setting and when he is in another.

There is no doubt however, that many in fandom think the entire world should be in cocktail-party courtesy at all times. They offer a bare description of the state of their mind, with no sense that it might actually be good to support it; then smile at each other and disperse having gained nothing. We form a haven for our fellow geeks, nerds and other outcasts, and so we cherish the tolerance of eccentricity. I cherish it as much as anyone. When I play a role-playing game, chat at a party, or do other activities, I judge the behavior of my companions only on whether it serves the purpose for which we came together during that time. I set aside differences that we had in an error-correction setting. I will not ever allow that tolerance to infringe on the effectiveness of error-correction systems.

As of today I'm changing the title of my Livejournal to "CITOKATE, Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error." This is labeling this social space, to make clear the discussion rules that I have always applied to the territory over which I have domain.

Comments

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

It was intended as a compliment. :)

[tlatoani.livejournal.com]

many in fandom think the entire world should be in cocktail-party courtesy at all times.

I don't think that's what the article says. I think it's saying that many fans believe the entire world should accept any rude behaviors from other people, practically without limit, without reprimanding them or retaliating in any way. That is not an expectation of cocktail-party courtesy, because cocktail-party courtesy is a two-sided expectation of politeness.

I also think the article exaggerates to make a point, but the point is valid; fandom as a whole is very hesitant to criticize its members for feral behavior, and that's a bad thing because it doesn't help them learn to behave reasonably.

[tlatoani.livejournal.com]

(And I don't class your behavior as feral, by the way.)

[marahsk.livejournal.com]

I happen to think that "supporting your friends" includes trying to stop them from marching off a cliff, rather than defending their right to do so.

But I do prefer "I don't think that idea will work because..." to "That's a stupid idea!".

[(Anonymous)]

I have also been wondering lately where accquaintanceship ends and friendship begins. The plain fact is that for many very wonderful activity partners, the less that they learn about each other's religious or political preferences the better it is for their relationship. Perhaps a friend is someone who we can be ourselves around, and those who we can't be fully ourselves around are not bad, and do not have to change. Much to the chagrin of those who think the whole world can join hands and walk down the yellow brick road in harmony, this may be an inevitable phenomenon that we should accept.

[drkelso.livejournal.com]

Sometimes its fun to get into an argument over religious or political topics and leave it at that. I have no illusions that my arguments are going to change someone's mind when we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. But sometimes its a fun challenge and in those cases, it should be no-holds-barred. If everyone understands the context and that it isn't personal, it can be a great learning experience.

Most other times, I don't feel like getting into it with someone and just want to goof off and have fun with no thought of the differences I have with the people I am around. In those cases I don't want to discuss the "hard topics."

I think friendship starts when two people can have it out with each other but be mature enough to let it go when it is finished and be able to enjoy each other's company in a casual context.

[marahsk.livejournal.com]

It's hard to say; it's like wondering when infatuation becomes love. I don't even know that there is a firm line between them. I think accquaintanceship merges into friendship as you get to know and like each other. Obviously some people move farther along and become closer friends than others.

A friend knows your flaws and likes/accepts you anyway, is one definition I like. Someone whose well-being is essential to my own.

But I have friends whose religious and/or political beliefs are vastly different from mine; sometimes that's ok, depending on what those beliefs are. I wouldn't be able to be friends with someone who was racist or sexist, for example. But I have some religious friends. It works because we emphasize the things we *do* have in common, although one of those friendships didn't work out because she became so religious that literally every part of her life became centered on her religion in some way (she even quit her job to become a missionary), so we had nothing in common any more.

But those friendships work because I accept that they believe a bunch of nonsensical superstition, and they accept that I resist the need to live my life as God requires.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

That last comment was from me. Unfortunately Livejournal makes my comments anonymous by default and does not prompt me if I want to log in.

[marahsk.livejournal.com]

I knew that was you. You have a distinctive writing style. :)

I have mine set up to never log out (on my home computer, since I'm the only one who uses it), so I'm always logged in unless I choose to log out.

[natashasikorsky.livejournal.com]

I have on occasion pooped on self-congratulatory behavior within fandom because I believe it is of benefit to people to occasionally meet people who don't worship them. I'm kinda going to do that right now. I think fandom is insular. I think fans tend to surround themselves with people who will compliment them. I think this limits the success of many in fandom.

You, Matt, do not have the perfect measure of correctness and truth within your brain. I say that not with any particular flaw in mind, though I now dare suggest you have a few. I saw that simply knowing that no human is perfect.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

This is fairly interesting as a convention report, but it does raise the question: what actually happened at ConClave that had you post this?


I always say that I only debate with people that I respect. :)


I do, however, tolerate a lot of eccentric behavior from fannish acquaintances, and I consider this a good thing. It's a very fine line between wierdness and creativity and I would not want to lose the latter.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of events on my Livejournal, which is an extension of fandom. It's the 21st-century fanzine. Nothing happened at ConClave that caused me to post this; if anything, the convention made me realize how seldom I see debates about religion and politics happen there, compared to on the internet. Panel discussions about it at previous conventions, including those with me as a panelist, were uniformly characterized by restraint and moderation.

[natashasikorsky.livejournal.com]

Outside of guest panels where the conservative or judeo-christian viewpoint is imported, you won't find much political or religious debate in Michigan fandom because the conservative and judeo-christian viewpoint is very much under-represented.

In the Pengiocon 3 con suite I heard someone speaking a conservative viewpoint while two of his buddies nodded in agreement. I held my breath and waited for the lashing, but none came. I looked around and saw nobody I recognized. I'm guessing these were Linux geeks and not fen. Now had he spoken up in, say, the Penguicon con suite at ConFusion he would have been slapped down so hard by you and others he'd likely not come to another fandom event.

It takes an articulate and confident person to stand up to an overwhelming majority, and those aren't qualities that are common in fandom. I, for one, feel quite unwelcome in a room full of people all in agreement that Christians are gullible morons. I've taken to wearing a big honkin' cross to fandom events so that if people want to spout off at the mouth they will at least be aware that they are being rude to someone. Should that fail to keep the discussion civil, though, I'll just opt to bail out of fandom because I don't have the debating skills to engage the masses and I don't have an infinite capacity for abuse.

You say you want debate but what you really want is a minority to beat up on.

Amy

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how you are using the word "conservative." Opposition to sex and drugs and alternative lifestyles? Or tax breaks for the rich?

I understand how you feel unwelcome in a room full of people all in agreement that Christians are gullible. You probably should avoid those environments. At the same time, your Bible contains countless insults to good people, so I feel uncomfortable around people rude enough to believe the Bible. That's why I generally avoid them.

Which one of us is a minority, and in what context? Which one is beat up and abused by the other? Do you not see the perfect equivalence in your demand that I change my own viewpoint?

[natashasikorsky.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how you are using the word "conservative." Opposition to sex and drugs and alternative lifestyles? Or tax breaks for the rich?

Eating babies, actually. By conservatism I mean eating babies :-)

Do you not see the perfect equivalence in your demand that I change my own viewpoint?

I didn't demand or even suggest you change your viewpoint. I'll go on record as begging you not to change your viewpoint :-)

You were bemoaning the lack of political and religious debate and I offered the suggestion that there's nobody to debate. If it's debate you want you'll have to debate a viewpoint you've allowed into your social circle.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

You make a very good point. This is another reason that it would come as no surprise that my debates with conservative Christians are mostly concentrated on PCCboard.

However, the subculture of fantasy fans is chock full of a loosely associated memetic cluster of neopaganism, relativism, distrust of science and technology, magical thinking, and a desire to turn back the clock of history to a more idyllic pastoral time. Sometimes that is barely any less annoying than the things I didn't like about church.

[treebones.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm glad my attention was drawn to this thread; I think I missed this the first time around in the flurry of the move.

I'm *very* glad you've chosen to label your journal as what I will shorthand as a critical space; that seems to be a minimal form of fair warning. I've not run astray of misunderstanding the tenor of this space, but I've seen several others do so. Labeling should help.

And I'm going to give thought as to how to encourage the creation, labeling, and possibily differentiation of the critical and social spaces within fandom. You're right that, to a certain degree, we are short of fully acceptable critical zones. But they *must*must*must* be well-labeled. It would be bad for community cohesion to create innocent bystanders taken out by essentially friendly fire.