Here's a longer piece about the whole topic of conversations that I wrote a while back: https://zrkrlc.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/a-long-guide-to-conv...
Here's a longer piece about the whole topic of conversations that I wrote a while back: https://zrkrlc.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/a-long-guide-to-conv...
Revealing "intimate" things about yourself seems to be the easiest way for others to believe that you consider them trustworthy for almost zero cost.
"u/screye trusts me enough to tell something they are vulnerable about." Or on a more selfish note, "I now hold leverage on r/screye, so I shall continue engaging with them from a position of assumed power" or lastly, "I can share something intimate about myself with u/screye because I know something just as important seeming, so they would not use it against me"
It works surprisingly well to fast track the building of a relationship with any acquaintance.
Ofc, I put intimate in "quotes" because while the details sound intimate to the listener, they are often carefully chosen to be ones that do not cause value judgements for my current self nor are they the real insecurities (or at least not present ones) which I hold far closer to my heart. But, the person I'm talking to doesn't need to know that.
I know analysing social interactions is seen as a rather, if you will forgive the term, "autistic" (or worse, sociopathic) way of looking at things , but some people do not have the natural capacity for social interactions that the vast majority of the population enjoy. I myself have wondered for years if I lay on the autism spectrum before getting diagnosed with ADHD and so all this I had to learn explicitly from years of observation.
That may be your perception of autism, but this statement is more akin to using "retarded" derogatorily than actually making a comparison. Autism is categorized by deficits in social interaction and repetitive thoughts or behaviorism. "Analyzing social interactions" is certainly not a standard symptom of autism, and depending on the severity of one's social deficit it may not even be possible for someone on the spectrum to do so without the help of a therapist/doctor/behavioral aid. I discovered I was on the spectrum this year, albeit at a relatively low level, and while I personally analyze social interactions a lot due to anxiety it absolutely shouldn't be seen as "rather autistic" as you say as that is a mischaracterization of autism
You've clarified that though and it seems much more reasonable, although I'm still not sure why there must be information asymmetry. As an example, I just attended an office holiday party. Myself and a coworker I don't know well had a brief conversation on each other's family visit dynamics during the holiday season. I think we both fairly adequately covered our respective situations, and neither of us could come away thinking, "Wow, he/she knows all about my setup but I still don't know much about theirs". It was pretty equitable.
hmmmm? one does not follow 2
Every conversation of a sensitive nature is an opportunity for disaster if not treated with the utmost care not to be "found out"
Making an effort to conform to social norms of politeness goes a long, long way.
Don't get me wrong; feel free to upset people, but they should be upset about the factual content of the message, not the delivery!
"What did you do this weekend" is a loaded question if you're a cultural outlier at your workplace. Even decent people often have personal biases that lead to awkwardness and friction.
I don't know why everyone assumes that "different" has to be "asshole"
If anything, "asshole-ish" would be a part of "self" that is allowed to be expressed at work, so long as it is in limited doses
I mean, I can think of plenty of hobbies/cultural differences/etc., that could make things awkward between colleagues, but not much that would get you fired. "Wow, Bob likes to go Skiing in a Furry costume while voting Republican and being an Atheist. We can't have that, let's fire Bob." doesn't seem all that likely of a reaction.
He should have stopped himself when he needed to add a disclaimer that he doesn't believe in prejudices and stereotypes. The need for such a statement is a giant red flag at which point one can ask themselves some critical questions.
When he is fired for this, a lot of conspiracy theories abound, up to and including in this thread. But he should work on the awareness to know what he was saying is a fireable offense by reasonable people. Apparently NLRB concluded the same.
This is all not the same as him being unforgivable or a bad person. In googling after this thread I noted an interview about him and autism. So he may very well deserve our sympathy and have an alternate explanation. The way people on forums like this one use him to allege a massive conspiracy at Google remains unwarranted despite this.
Otherwise, I work in an environment in an industry that is much further "to the left" than SV Tech: academe. You may not believe it, but despite the cliche ostracism of "OMG that's a ::hushed tones:: conservative", it is quite easy to be one without self censoring. You simply refrain from injecting situations with those views when they're not called for, and if they are or you decide to do so during non-work times (breaks or side conversations) you be respectful of the other opinion. In short, don't be an asshole.
I get along with plenty of people all along the political spectrum at work, because we have an environment of respect and professionalism.
In other words, you tend to avoid sensitive topics at certain times.
But, if in every meeting I attended I went on a rant about how 4-year colleges inflate student debt for marginal gain and future earning potential (yes, the issue is more complex than that) then I would be labelled some flavor of asshole, unprofessional, etc.
However, consider the context of admissions standards and policy for the institution. It would not be inappropriate to discuss aspects of that idea. How some segment of our population may not be good fits for the institution or 4 year college in general, that they would be better served by some other path of advanced education and job training, and how it is part of our job to set students on a good path rather than chase tuition dollars that put the student in debt for no likely tangible benefit. That would be appropriate to do, and in fact I do this on a somewhat regular basis, backed up by rigorous data analysis (my own area of work) from both my own institution and national data, when we are setting enrollment goals and other related benchmarks.
It's also been perfectly fine for me to discuss other controversial/unpopular opinions with colleagues outside of meetings during non-work related breaks or side conversations so long as I do so respectfully. Roughly two decades of steady career advancement would indicate that none of this has hurt me professionally: I have literally never failed to be awarded a promotion I was seeking, and quite contrary to negative consequences I have developed a reputation of speaking honest, unvarnished opinion backed by solid evidence.
Thoughtful comment. Thanks again!
As for actual assholes, one shouldn't assume they want best for the team, or anyone else for that matter. Some people shine best when slinging turds making everyone else look bad. They are usually minority though and managable.
"Hmm, Ok well, I hate and resent all of you, but I absolutely rely on the paycheck from this scammy, terrible company."
"Uh, nevermind, stop being yourself."
Outside of work, you should be genuine. You don't have to be everyone's friend.
This is also why I don't socially interact with work mates.
Be yourself / don’t model / etc. works for those who are able to take this analogy to children learning language (in a natural way) vs. learning language by studying grammar and vocabulary systematically. The former is desirable because it’s speedy, you grow the skills you use most (so it reinforces the right things) but sometimes it’s just not available. That can happen just because you suck at it.
There are very limited ways other people’s lives are better than mine (as an existence proof) and I used to model interactions. I stopped when my skill reached unconscious competence.
Social rules are even less concrete, meaning that learning the amorphous set of unwritten rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.,through analysis more than osmosis may let you know when it's okay to bend or break one.
There is an abundance of social stratification in language, and the ability to code switch in different social environments is an important skill. It doesn't matter that you would still be understood if you did not do so, what matters are the pragmatics and social labeling attached to speaking in/out of the current group's mode of speaking.
It is true that the formal study of linguistics (which was my own area of advanced degree) does not consider there to be an absolute correct way of speaking, that "grammar" is not some unchanging and inherently correct set of rules. They are, instead, a social convention. And like many other social conventions, breaking their rules has consequences, and understanding those rules and consequences is important to navigating in social environments.
(Statistics isn't my strong suit but I believe this is perfectly in line with modeling a person's trustworthiness as a Bayesian process?)
Of course I have also been diagnosed with depression and social anxiety.
I think I excel in work interviews and first dates because I have time to plan for these scenarios, but I am terrible I'm group situations and day to day activities. Once I get the job I just work and try to avoid communication as much as possible.
And of course a network of friends while helpful is not a 1-for-1 substitute for say, a therapist.
Obviously, you need to have some sense of the other person, and whether they will respond well. But really, most human beings are decent. And those who aren't, mostly aren't worth knowing at all.