Examples of Competent Political Conversation in Contrast to Nerdy Responses

post by Bound_up · 2018-01-10T19:00:47.891Z · LW · GW · 12 comments

Contents

12 comments

I've talked a lot about the idea that some people speak one way, and others another way. Naturally, this is a spectrum, and each of us uses some of both. Indeed, depending on the topic, one person might be at one extreme end of this spectrum for one conversation, while being at the other extreme for another. (Scientists, I imagine, are very "nerdy" when talking about their work, but can be as political as anybody else when it comes to things that, in contrast to their work, they don't need to actually be right about; they can afford to sacrifice accuracy in exchange for social capital.)

Here are some examples of conversations. In each, a normal (hence, political) person will say something, and we will then have the opportunity to respond in their own language, garnering status and establishing ourselves as a potentially useful ally or dangerous enemy, or, in contrast, we may answer as a nerd, showing that we are blind to what's really going on, which will lower our status. We'll (justly!) be considered a political NPC, really.

Trump is Dumb (nerdy reply)

A "Trump is dumb, isn't he." (Here, B perceives A's subtext as "Trump is dumb," ie, B perceives no subtext at all (by the way, note that A's sentence is not really a question, is it.))

B "Possibly, but there's plenty of Bayesian evidence suggesting otherwise if you take into account his income, education, the accomplishments of his close family members, and so on."

Trump is Dumb 2 (politically savvy reply)

A "Trump is dumb, isn't he." (Here, B perceives A's subtext (correctly) to be "I am now signaling my membership in those groups which recite this line, and disassociating myself from those groups which would never recite this line, including nerdy thinkers who (even if held the same belief) would express their beliefs in a more nuanced way, since reality is nuanced and nerds are monochrome speakers who only ever describe reality, rather than also using subcommmunication, ie, using statements which appear to communicate about one piece of reality, but which are actually communicating information about a different piece of reality, namely, the political position of certain people.

B "Makes me embarrassed that my favorite color was ever orange." (Note that on the surface, this is a total non sequitur (ever noticed how much "normal" and political conversation seems to use non sequiturs?), but, if you look at the subtext, it's an on-topic reply. A presented information about tribal membership credentials, and B did precisely the same thing, therefore, on the important level, the topic hasn't changed at all. The key is this: any generic insult will do, since that effectively communicates accurate information about the true topic of conversation: tribal membership. You could say Trump's nose looked like a tomato with barely anything seeming out of place, since it would send the same message about tribal membership. In a very real sense (see my post about the "true essence of honesty"), saying these words (that Trump's nose looks like a tomato) is even true, because it's not communicating any information about Trump's nose (though you can see why some might think it does), and the information that it does communiate (one's tribal affiliations) is completely accurate. The result? The words are not true, but saying the words is true.

My Co-Workers are Idiots (nerdy reply)

A "God, my co-workers are such idiots." (B interprets this as an attempt to most precisely describe A's co-workers' qualities ('cuz that's what humans are all about, right, precisely describing things? (hint: that's what nerds are about (it's why they correct themselves unnecessarily, for example))

B "Possibly, though from what you've told me, I might describe more as careless than idiotic and, frankly (no offense), it's possible that a more objective representation of the events would reveal them to be acting reasonably on some level, despite what seems on the surface to be carelessness." (A may now justly throw up their hands in despair that B is both so clueless as to say something like this and then, on top of that, is also so clueless as to not be embarrassed about it)

My Co-Workers are Idiots 2 (politically savvy reply)

A "God, my co-workers are such idiots." (B interprets this as a generic putdown of the co-workers. It's not even necessarily a general dislike, since a dislike suggests a stable opinion or feeling, and this is nothing more than a roundabout way of expressing something that is felt in the moment. A might say similar words to express a negative feeling they might have about a loved one)

B "I mean, you are a really great worker, you know what I mean?" (raising A is as good as putting down B; status is relative like that. Additionally, it's better that B says that A is "a good worker" than that B "does such great work." Most people don't think their work is "about" the work; they focus on the work politics. So...how to say...a "worker" as a concept refers to their membership in a certain tribe, and saying that they're a "good" member of that tribe suggests that they fulfill the norms of that tribe well, and, as a result, have/deserve high status. The key is to see that "worker" doesn't mean "a person who works" in this case, but rather refers to tribal membership. Someone who does great work might not be a "good worker," you see? Not even if they interfere with the work in other ways; if they keep to themselves and don't help buy gifts or pizza, they're not a "good worker" even if they take nothing from anybody and also do great work.

After reviewing these concepts alone, in my head, I was able to become familiar enough with them to use them in real time. I could hear a statement, repress my nerdy interpretation of it, and generate a correct political response on the fly. This in-the-field testing greatly impacted me. People responded much more positively. While I feared that it'd seem like I was changing the subject (which was how it seemed to my nerdy perspective), they gave no hint of this, suggesting that finally (finally!) we were really speaking the same language, we were in sync at last. From these first faltering steps has since come great progress. Conversations are more positive and filled with more energy. I can persuade people and impress them. Apparently I'm funny now. I've been told it's hard to imagine I wasn't always social.

This is satisfaction and power both, and I now have a very slightly clearer idea of what it would take to get more people on board with important EA-style plans and other such things. I've despaired at time that most of our greatest thinkers can't talk well, or seem so obviously nerdy. Indeed, that I know of, we have not a single great speaker in the whole rationalist community despite our bevy of magnificent writers, and I think this places some hard limits on our ability to grow in influence. If the rationalist community can become socially competent, I think it will grow easily and quickly. At the end of the day, for most people, the "product" is the community, not the ideas we share, so, we will be judged for our people's mannerisms and "cool" factor, not for our lines of thought.

12 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.