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

[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.