Social Proficiency of a Rationalist and a Scholar

I thought that the golden rule was treat others as they would like to be treated, not as you would like to be treated.

That is sometimes proposed as moral rule too. But the golden rule is "do unto others as as you would have them do unto you". From the looks of it the quote you have there is one I took straight from wikipedia.

And yes, the golden rule being that way is obviously silly. If I went around doing that I would be locked up for sexual assault or harassment.

Holy crap, suddenly lots of up-to-now-incomprehensible stuff stared making sense!

The problem is, those guys aren't even aware of this, and when you actually ask them why they behave so incongruously, they bullshit their way or can't answer at all. So can we only count on each other to find out about this stuff, highlight it, and explain it? I'm dead serious here: where can I read more about this?

What proportion of Less Wrong regulars are intelligent rationalists?

Nice us vs. them litany you got there. I think the descriptions of what "intelligent rationalists" do are actually mostly descriptions of what people who identify as "intelligent rationalists" tell themselves about themselves.

But I agree about the parts about what "normal people" do, so it's still a useful comment.

Back to "friendly" socializing: In general, I kinda suck at saying stuff I know isn't true, and going for someone's masculinity or for other sources of their self-esteem is something that really doesn't come naturally to me. Back in the old nerdy days I used to clam up in indignation (or sheepish shocked sadness depending on how much I knew the person appreciated me: I mean, someone who's a true friend, and is loyal, and helpful, and nice, and suddenly out of the blue and for no reason at all Attacks Your Weak Point For Massive Damage). Nowadays I just use a wary "are you fucking kidding me" face and, if the other person keeps it up, some dry, deadpan put down heavily inspired in Batman and Quirrelmort (I only wish I could emulate the level of threat post-Azkaban Quirrelmort exuded). (Yes, much of my social repertoire is taken directly from fictional characters.)

I recognize these behaviors as things that I did in such situations when I was younger. Here's what helped me get over that: I realized that, for the most part, people can only embarrass you if you agree to be embarrassed. It's much easier for me to interact in a teasing environment now that I've simply stopped taking it so seriously.

The underlying principle is that everyone has embarrassing stories and characteristics. Participating in making fun of these things, both yours and others', is a way to signal trust and belonging to the other people in the group. The point of this kind of interaction isn't to be cruel or mean; it's that not being able to talk about sensitive topics makes you seem like a member of the out-group. Members of the in-group will generally be less offended by a teasing remark made by one of their own than by the same remark made by someone outside of the group, so matching those differing levels of offense demonstrates your familiarity with the in-group.

Obviously, not becoming embarrassed or offended is easier said than done. I recommend trying not to display or act on the feeling even if you have it. As I worked on doing this, the feeling itself became much less prevalent.

Also, it's important to keep track of which topics are off-limits even for the in-group. People may have issues that are simply too sensitive for the usual teasing, and failing to realize that is another signal of lack of familiarity with the group members, and therefore out-group status.

You definitely should read Impro and maybe take a class on improvisational theater if you can. Being status blind is a huge handicap that I'm not sure can be overcome. You just have to learn.

http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Improvisation-Theatre-Keith-Johnstone/dp/0878301178

Japanese is nice in this regard because they actually have special words and language used to refer to people of significantly higher or lower status.

Also: teasing generally involves saying things you both know isn't true and you have mutual knowledge that the other knows you know it isn't true.

Great talk by Pinker about mutual knowledge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU

There's a reason that nerds have trouble succeeding at social excellence when trying to reason about it from scratch. This stuff is extremely complicated and normal people are relying on built in heuristics to do much of the work.

The first 2 seasons of the TV show Entourage seems to be a good examination of how extraverts do teasing (plus it is a lot of fun to watch). Since the show is inspired by real people (actor Mark Wahlberg and some of his friends and associates) and since every episode has at least one famous Hollywood personality playing themselves, it seems to hew closer to real life than most scripted TV does.