Friday Discussion Subject

[browngirl]

Five Geek Social Fallacies
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

Hmmm.

Leaving aside the discussion on whether these also afflict non-geeky groups (IME, they do), the synopsis of my take on this is that I can see the author's point, though I have minor quibbles.

Link from rosefox and griffen.

Comments

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

Heh. That sounds like fandom, all right. Or at least local fandom as I know it. I am amused.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I'd say he's pretty spot-on, in so far as sociological generalizations go. (It's pretty much a fundamental notion in sociology that there are ALWAYS exceptions to the general trend, such that no one actually bothers to say so.)

[jenny_evergreen]

Okay, when I first saw this, I skimmed through it and pretty much nodded my head. Further examination is inspired by you. =)

The first one is one of my personal pet peeves, and I don't see anything I disagree with. Some of what I go on about later is related to this.

The second one is also one I agree with, although there is the related idea that one should avoid any criticism that is not constructive, and THAT is not a fallacy. Good criticism includes real suggestions on how to improve the problem, and acknowledges good points as well as bad, and is as tactful and kind as possible.

I think the writer is a little off on three. The "loyalty obsession", as I think of it, has more to do with the fact that many, many people suffer from horrible self esteem, and believe, deep down, that the ONLY thing they can REALLY offer is total, unswerving loyalty...and come to desperately want it in return, because loyalty may not BE love, but it FEELS like love a lot. It's very serious and very sad and I wish I could give everyone good self esteem, but I can't. All I can do is point this out and hope those who recognize themselves in it will start thinking in a more positive way.

Four is not, ime, all that common. I hear too many people talk about "wishing" that their friends all liked each other, which implies an awareness that it is possible for them not to. Generally, most people have encountered at least one friend of a friend that they didn't like, so this doesn't last long, ime. Hard to hold a belief when one has personally experienced the fallacy of the belief.
I think this is sometimes confused with the idea that "it is important to me that all my friends be here, and my friends should be able to get along in such situations", which really isn't all that unreasonable, if not abused. I think the key is acknowledging to the friends that you know they don't really get along and asking that they try to bury that as much as possible for this event because it's really important to you. (And having the good sense to limit such requests to events with really ARE important to you, as a courtesy to ALL your friends.)

The fifth one is a little tricky for me. Not being invited to something to which you would wish to go is hurtful, unless there is a good reason, and good reasons are hard to come up with for me. A limit on the number of people is mentioned as an example. My personal strategy for handling something like that would go as follows. First, eliminate anyone who I know can't go (people who work at the time of the event, etc.) Check the number. Eliminate people who I KNOW won't be interested in any part of the activity. (That means if Joe hates plays, but loves eating out with friends, and the plan is for dinner and a play, I'd still invite Joe to the dinner, all other things being equal. The use of compromises like this can be very helpful.) Check the number. Start calling people. Eliminate anyone who chooses not to come for whatever reason (sick, busy, etc.) If people debate, tell them that space is limited so if they're not all that interested, it would be perfectly fine if they stayed home and let someone else who REALLY wanted to go get in. I do NOT stop calling when I get enough people, but I DO become more discouraging to the people I'm talking to. ("We already have too many, people are going to have to drop out, but if you really want to go...") Tally the number. Hopefully, we haven't gone over. If we have, start asking people if they'd be willing to not attend, starting with the people who were called first. Generally, enough people will bow out that we get the number, or only one or two over, and there you go.
Sure, it's work. That's why I don't have a huge circle of friends. ;)

(Hee, I had a LOT to say, I ran out of room! Read next post to get to the end! =)

[jenny_evergreen]

I think the thing not really being addressed here is the "All Friendships Must Be Of Equal Intensity/Value" fallacy. The fact is there are friends that are more important to one and friends that are less important. Some people refuse to admit this, and that evolves into the sort of thing mentioned in the fifth fallacy. We need to just admit this stuff to each other..."It's not that I don't like you, it's just that I'm not, for WHATEVER reason, as close to you as I am to X." (And sometimes X, Y, Z, and Pi.)
The real problem comes in when the situation is not reciprocal...e.g. Pete would LOVE to spend ALL his time with Joe, but Joe thinks of Pete as more of an acquaintance. This is just an unfortunate situation, fact of life.
If I'm Pete, I'm sad. I may question my self-worth, but I try to remind myself that I AM that important to other people, and, in a lot of situations, it's not that Joe wouldn't be my best buddy, but that Joe already has too many people in his intimate circle, with no room for more, no matter how wonderful they are.
If I'm Joe, it's possible I just don't like Pete that much or feel comfortable enough with him. If asked, I will attempt to explain why, as tactfully as possible (and often even if not asked, if I think Pete wants to know and is afraid to ask.) This is the reason many people enter into subterfuge...they don't want to face up to the truth. IMO, it isn't easy, but it's a mark of respect to be honest with someone else, even when the honesty is painful of necessity. And if the person is willing and capable of altering the things that one tells them about, they deserve the chance to alter them. If there is no thing and it's just an irrational lack of interest or whatever on Joe's part, well, then, yeah, Joe SHOULD feel rather bad, while acknowledging that there's nothing he can do about it. (Which is another thing people don't want to face up to.) It's equally likely that I (as Joe) just don't have room in my life for another intimate friend, and I may genuinely wish I had more time for Pete, which is the least painful situation.

In a perfect world, stuff like this would not happen, but we do not live in a perfect world, and people are people.
I've been in Pete's place a LOT...and I've been in Joe's place a time or two as well. I've learned to appreciate that friendship can't be forced, and learned to value myself enough not to keep throwing at myself to someone who, for whatever reason, is unable to reciprocate. I don't bear ill-will anymore, and when people try to deepen relationships with me, unless, you know, they're REALLY objectionable, I give them every chance I can (since, at this time, I don't have a too-full circle, at least locally.)

As I see it, we just all need a little more guts, a little more honesty, and a LOT of goodwill and kindness. And to remember that there is no such thing as an absolute law.

*ahem* All done now. *embarrassed grin*

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

I was Joe's place fairly often a few years back, and a lot of the time the answer was "Because our friendship seems to be based on long, rambling evening phone conversations, and evenings are the time I spend with my spouse and children now." People's circumstances change, and, as you said, all connections definitely aren't of equal value. Sometimes Pete is asking more time of Joe than Joe has to give.

[jenny_evergreen]

*nod* Exactly.

[jim-p.livejournal.com]

As I said in shayde's journal entry on this same subject, several of these patterns are common features of dysfunctional families. Whether that means that geekdom is one great big dysfunctional family, or whether geeks are products of dysfunctional families, is an exercise for the reader.

[badgerthorazine.livejournal.com]

but...well, to me, the only possible answer to that is "Yes!" *wry grin*