|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Humor me for a moment and imagine yourself in this setting. We find ourselves today (for the purpose of this article) with a group of friends and somewhat close acquaintances. Inevitably we're going to have to say something, whether we like it (as is usually the case for me - perhaps I like the sound of my own voice) or not. It may be because everyone is being asked to answer a question; it may otherwise be because the environment expects us to take the conversational initiative from time to time. In such a circumstance, what metric should guide our decision making in what to say and what not to say? We should keep in mind that not everyone in the group is the closest of confidantes for us. In a group setting, it's a reasonable assertion that the trust level in conversation falls to the lowest common denominator (admittedly, not something that I do particularly well). This should put some limitations on what we can and cannot say; it should help us find the key metric to guide us. There are of course many possible properties of remarks that we could choose from. I've given the subject much thought lately, and I currently think that we can imagine a 2 dimensional coordinate system on which a potential comment lies: Truthfulness, and Controversy.
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1amwoLEYU1qlx8s5.png)
I used to think (and perhaps still think) that truthfulness, above all else, take precedence. If there is some limit to our expression, then I expected it to be higher than what most people thought was reasonable. I thought that there was some inherent and unassailable virtue to being truthful at all times to all people. However, I'm starting to think that I may have been mistaken. Conversation in a typical setting is made for the benefit of the group, not the benefit of the speaker[1]. In this case, the limits of comment are bound primarily by what the group wants to hear. This can be rephrased as what the group doesn't want to hear. A limit is placed on how controversial our comments can be, relative to the group's expectations. Truthfulness becomes secondary at best. If what the group wants to hear becomes a "white-lie", then a white-lie we must tell.
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1amx3M2sj1qlx8s5.png)
The plain, unfortunate truth seems to be that the large group setting is simply not a place to actively pursue Socratic or Freudian discourse. The social setting demands us to socialize; it does not demand us to deep dive into any subject[2]. The recourse then is to have some avenue to vent, whether it be through an anonymous blog or a close group of confidantes who enjoy and accept conversation outside the bounds of social convention.
[1] The closer you are to the group, the more controversial or un-PC we can be. Additionally, the limit is not the average of the group, but again, the lowest common denominator. [2] We should consider ourselves very fortunate if we can find such social settings where controversial positions are not only tolerated but welcomed.
Crossposted from my main blog
 
|
what would be the maximum of the controversy bar for you then? im curious.
holocaust denial? the endorsement of catholic priests raping acolyte boys?(saying those things in humor i mean)
|
Interesting read about a topic I never would have a thought about. And I can agree with all the points you've made.
5/5
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
white lies r for the weak
|
I only speak truth or what seems true to me at the very least. I don't care what about people say or think of me. If I want to say something and I feel that it's correct I will say it. Either way, it will start controversy and I'm always good to have a debate. I always have one with my girlfriend every night. Makes things fun, sometimes I am proven wrong, sometimes I am not.
On March 23 2012 01:22 Rekrul wrote:
white lies r for the weak
|
I exhagherate shit to make it more dramatic and interesting, not by a lot just by a littler. So I guess im doing what your saying, lieing for the point of socializing
|
My friends and I cultivate an atmosphere of honesty and tolerance that spirals out to people who aren't core members and who sometimes might not even know us. We want to learn from each other and flesh out the deeper reasons when people disagree on any subject, trivial or serious. It seems to be pretty unusual but many people who stumble into a good conversation among us... seem to really appreciate it? So the wherewithall and desire for social conversation the way we like is a common individual trait, but it doesn't manifest in groups readily. It can certainly be challenging but that is borne together with almost a sense of team spirit, I guess. It's always very rewarding, stimulating.
When it comes to personal opinions about others (such as physical appearance) we are only ever positive or constructive, which may be the realm of the white lie, but we are friends being social, after all.
I think your statement about expectations in relation to controversy is very telling. To me, this is the heart of the matter. You've made me realize that implicitly, our group believes in individuality -- we actively head off herd mentality while at the same time welcoming differences. A group expectation is almost an arbitrary limitation on acceptable behavior that doesn't apply to any one person's thoughts or feelings. It's obviously a useful social shortcut -- otherwise we wouldn't be predisposed to that sort of dynamic -- but it actively curtails true interpersonal understanding and the things you are referring to with [2]. When someone defies expectations, we don't say (verbally or otherwise) "that's not allowed", we steer the conversation towards finding out why someone would be that way, hold that view.
What's cool is that this semi-deliberate but mostly unspoken approach to generic talk among friends is self-promoting and contagious once you have a certain critical mass. Not flawlessly -- there are definitely people who are put off by it. I would call them unprepared, or shallow. Or they may have a different view (a different expectation) for being social. Higher expectations for conversation are counter to natural tendencies, to a point.
Also, of course we're not perfect but I just wanted to share cause I feel like the things letting you down that you find lacking, someone is trying to do those things!
edit-
I should say, I think most people try to do what I describe above in their own way. I don't want to sound pretentious (if I can help it). =\
About the graph, it gives the sense that those two dimensions have some correlation or inverse correlation, though I don't think you meant to imply that really. I think controversy is a straightforward trait to apply to conversation but truth is a little unspecific. Do you mean speaking your mind -- true feelings? Or Truth with a capital T? It's hard for people to even know themselves completely, and the choice to mitigate our outward expression cannot be separated from the essence of the inner thought, like the emotion is partly what is shown, not just what is felt. Most of the time I can't put in to words what I "really think". Any words would only convey partially and with partial accuracy what I wanted to communicate.
edit 2-
I noticed on your outside blog that it's called Japanese Blog. It made me remember so many of these observations could differ between cultures, at least superficially but potentially in more substantive ways too.
|
haji,
I have to ask.
Are you by any chance writing a book on communication or a thesis? It awfully sounds like it judging from your last two dozen blog entries.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
Maybe instead of truthfulness, you can look at how personal the topic is to a person? So if you're talking about a recent shooting, it's probably not a good topic if someone in the group has recently lost a relative to a shooting. Also, maybe it'll be ok to say how the shooter deserves what he got but not how he is a byproduct of a corrupt society etc. so the stance you take on the subject can affect how a person responds. Maybe you can plot how personal the topic is vs. level of disagreement.
|
It's a nice idea model-wise but I think it misses wholesale two critical points. Firstly that there IS also another equilibrium for all players to tell pure truth. You hint at its potential existence in your last paragraph, though presumably you opt to ignore it in your main discussion for reasons of it being prohibitively costly, so to speak, to be the only agent playing a pure-truth strategy. Secondly and perhaps even more importantly this fails to account for the fact that any given conversation is simply a stage-game in a sequence of repeated interactions, thus non-'safe' equilibria are potentially achievable under repeat play, a result that contradicts your conclusion.
|
Blue not to mention personality. I used to know a lot of people who were constant liars regardless of the setting.
|
lol i saw that graph and i was just like "rekrul"
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 23 2012 01:47 StarStruck wrote:
haji,
I have to ask.
Are you by any chance writing a book on communication or a thesis? It awfully sounds like it judging from your last two dozen blog entries.
Nope, these are just my ramblings. Some are just thought experiments, some are my beliefs, some are my actions.
|
Have to agree with Rekrul. White lies are for the weak.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 23 2012 14:54 Thaniri wrote:
Have to agree with Rekrul. White lies are for the weak.
White lies are weak. But how many amongst us are not weak in this world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
