Robin

[lathany]

Two main two things of today for me.

1. I survived the work Xmas meal. I was responsible for the choice of restaurant and no-one died of food poisoning. I think people even liked the place. That's definitely a win.

2. I found a link to this in a comment on a friend's journal today. I found, as I read it with increasing fascination, that it reminded me of some of my social circle. For which I will probably get flamed, so I'm stopping there.

Comments

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

"nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate."

Or, more likely, nearly every geek social group has at least one member which the author hates, and therefore incorrectly assumes that everyone else either also hates that person, or else is lying when they say they like them, their friendly behaviour being accounted for by the theory that the person is merely "tolerated".

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Is it more likely? Does anyone assume that because they hate someone everyone else also does? I'd think it more likely that they'd believe everyone else should hate them - but that's a different issue.

I do, however, agree that the 80% hate / 20% tolerate / 0% like is an exaggeration.

This came off an LJ debate (which was locked so I'm being a bit wary about saying too much that might identify the author/other debaters) where the initial author was taking the line that annoying people should be engaged with despite their annoyingness and said that:
1. this would enhance their social skills through interactions with others
and
2. this was the human/charitable thing to do.

There was some support (about 40%) for that and the people who objected generally put it down to a few key reasons:
1. Who the annoying people are is subjective (if you don't spend time with them, then someone who likes them will and that must be better)
2. That it isn't improving their social skills as you're effectively sending them a false signal
3. That it's stopping annoying people from finding others who genuinely like them as they are (this is another version of 1. really)
4. That they didn't see why it was their role to look after the annoying people

(and someone linked to the list - which is how I found it)

Interestingly, the closest anyone came to your point was 1. and 3. despite there seeming to be a wide range of viewpoints. I guess we all see things differently.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Does anyone assume that because they hate someone everyone else also does?

Well, I'm exaggerating to say that one might assume that everyone also hates them, but I think it's a pretty common form of projection to think "I hate X, so other people will probably hate it too". X needn't be a person, and when it is you'd probably think, "I guess their Mum doesn't", rather than making a universal assumption...

I don't know whether I would make the same point in response to the post you describe, so I may not be adding anything to that debate. As you've described it, I agree with point 1, although I'd possibly go further and say that there might well be people who find the person annoying but nevertheless like them. These are the people with the greatest stake in making those people less annoying.

The original claim seems to be that we have a duty to iron out behaviours in others that we find annoying. Stated that way I think it's firstly a bit self-centred to be a guiding principle, and secondly potentially quite patronising, and hence itself "annoying", if taken too far. It's one thing to think that someone "lacks social skills", it's another thing to assume that they'd therefore be glad of my assistance and tutelage...

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm exaggerating to say that one might assume that everyone also hates them, but I think it's a pretty common form of projection to think "I hate X, so other people will probably hate it too".

I can believe that as a starting point where there simply isn't any other information (like it's similar but opposite to the situation where people introduce their friends to friends). However, once you've seen them interact with others, it means making a number of misinterpretations about friends' visible reactions, plus misunderstanding what they like and don't like in people and so on. I think all that is rather less likely.

It's one thing to think that someone "lacks social skills", it's another thing to assume that they'd therefore be glad of my assistance and tutelage...

I agree. Because I've summarised, I've probably made the original claim look worse than it actually was; although I feel that there was a certain element of that in there.

I'd possibly go further and say that there might well be people who find the person annoying but nevertheless like them.

Yes, I can identify with that. I've heard other people make that sort of statement as well.