the researchers themselves say this kind of sensitivity is a learned skill
If its learned, how do you teach it? My son is clueless when it comes to this type of sensitivity, and I'd like to change that.
I've heard this sort of study in ed contexts before, in terms of forming groups and why your female students are going to improve the group despite their dumbness, while the group of male eccentric prodigies is going to underperform.
1 is sort of a good question. What exactly am I doing differently to my daughters than my sons, since I'm not doing all the extra clunky obvious 1950s sexism?
While I'm deeply socially awkward in general, I kick ass at the "what emotion is this set of eyes expressing" tests, and I do spend a fair amount of time at work massaging other people's states of mind so as to keep the work progressing, and internally bitching to myself about how my coworkers are not doing the same.
Are you sure that's not a causal relationship? Not being aware of anything going on sounds like a very good way to not be awkward. Or at least to not know you're awkward.
Oh, sure. If you want to be blithely self-confident, having no idea what anyone else is thinking is a great way to go.
I've tried that so, so many times. I always fail.
7: Do you fail at being unaware of what other people are thinking? Or do you succeed at that, but than fail to be blithely self-confident? Or do you succeed at both of those, but then fail horribly when it comes to actually doing something?
I fail at being unaware of what other people are thinking when what they are thinking is that I've fucked up or am an asshole. Unless I don't fail at that except rarely.
1, 3: First, you personally might not be treating Hawaii and Hokey differently. The 'women are better at this than men' generalization isn't made about a pool of kids raised by feminist parents in the 21st century. I might be fooling myself, but I think Sally and Newt are pretty much on a level at this kind fo thing.
Second, on how to teach it? This isn't based on anything but my own speculation, but I think making a kid work successfully in a firm hierarchy helps. You learn to figure out what other people think and feel if it matters to you, and it matters to you either if you're a nice person who spontaneously cares about other people, if you're a curious person who is spontaneously interested in other people, or if their state of mind is going to have an important effect on your life because they can tell you what to do and make it stick. The first two possibilities, I don't know how to get there, but the third I think you can get to by putting the kid in a situation where to function successfully, they have to be obedient.
To put it another way, I think the male deficit on these skills has something to do with all the beliefs that boys are incapable of self-control, and so it's unreasonable to expect them to behave appropriately in a classroom. A kid who isn't expected to be able to not enrage their teacher, doesn't learn how to watch them out of the corner of their eye and read body language for when the class is supposed to come to order before the yelling starts.
I'd be interested to look at research on social sensitivity among military and ex-military men. This is stereotyping from a fairly small sample of friends and acquaintances, but while there are certainly plenty of ex-military assholes, I tend to stereotype them as better than average on social/emotional cues, and I'm speculating about that coming from living in a situation where your formal superiors' states of mind really matter to your life.
If you want to be blithely self-confident, having no idea what anyone else is thinking is a great way to go.
See middle management, passim.
but the third I think you can get to by putting the kid in a situation where to function successfully, they have to be obedient.
Interesting. I think of stereotypically Texan parents as placing a very high emphasis on obedience - friends who grew up having to call their parents ma'am and sir, having to put on a certain kind of sufficiently respectful attitude rather than just sulkily doing the task or arguing about it. I wonder if there's a silver lining of social ability to the hyper-authorotarianism.
Also I can not spell today. What's wrong with authorotarianism? And I gave up on sociable-ilility and just went with "social ability"
authorotarianism
authorItarianism. jeez
authorotarianism -- authoritarianism as practiced in Rotary Clubs?
I am sympathetic to the topic of this post, but I mostly clicked through because of the post title. Well done.
the third I think you can get to by putting the kid in a situation where to function successfully, they have to be obedient.
Ha, yeah. That ALWAYS ends in tears. If "be obedient" is the prerequisite, then "function successfully" goes right out the window. That's just not my kid's style. It was never mine, either.
Not to say he can't behave himself, just that expecting him to do so as a response to authority is not the way to make it happen.
What exactly am I doing differently to my daughters than my sons
Circumcision?
Guilt has mixed results. What tends to work is involving him in decisions and discussing the reasons for things. And praise work pretty well, but bribery does not. With him, its all about getting him interested in shit, to develop intrinsic motivation, because the extrinsic stuff has little effect.
Also, back on the veldt, people who started off by saying the theory of a "g factor." ... is among the most replicated findings in psychology clearly hadn't read their Cosma Shalizi
1: The stereotypical answer is to have him hang out with girls instead of boys. Boys tend to resolve their conflicts sharply--you might be so frustrated that it breaks out into a fist fight, but that's enough to clear the air and the friendship resumes. [Again, stereo-typically--after 4th grade, my conflicts were never physical, but it was usually very clear to everyone if I was friends with someone.]
Conversely, my wife talks about how much social pressure, verbal policing, and shifting alliances run in female circles. Girls seem to have ordered lists of friends, instead of baskets of friends. Expressing yourself indirectly is another social skill that's taught and developed, with the matching "hear the text and infer the subtext" coming along for the ride.
At most ages, socializing with the other gender's not something that you can do much to encourage. Another solution that makes my wife a terrific social weathervane is terrible--her mother was irrational, had rapid mood changes, and was often angry through her childhood. She can tell at a glance what the emotional state of a room or person is... but it's incredibly draining and deepened her introversion, since the fear/cringe is something she can't turn off easily.
My kid, at 8, is a total ladies man, but he really only hangs out with one girl at a time. Right now his girlfriend, of the moment, is Portuguese. They hold hands and stuff.
10. Life in a hierarchy rewards kissing up and kicking down. Possibly if there's no chance for promotion or rearrangement , and if the bosses are competent and decent, then this is beneficial.
IMO the way to teach social alertness is to give kids something useful to get done with a group-- working young, meaningful chores beyond just picking up after yourself are common. Most places where kids get orders there's some motivating reason for them to line up and organize. So I agree that getting orders to do something useful is helpful, but I claim that the "something useful" is much more relevant than "getting orders". It's an accident of the way we live that these usually come as a package for lots of kids.
Failing the motivating reason, the kids are going through the motions for makework, they know it, and their leaders know it.
This is probably mentioned in the actual study, but I want to know how much of this is compensating for bad group dynamics. That is, how would the people in these groups have fared at the tests if they were doing them purely individually? Better or worse than the groups they were in?
18: that is apparently a risk factor for alexithymia, which seems related.
10.2:...but I think making a kid work successfully in a firm hierarchy helps.
R Taggert Murphy, Japan and the Shackles of the Past, 2015 (Murphy, like Ritchie, is another gay who moved to Japan forty years ago.)
Serve someone a cup of tea with a sweet and one will be thanked for the feast (gochisō sama deshita). Alternatively, just before sitting down to a sumptuous repast, one will be told there is so little to eat that it is shameful. Of course, all this reaches the level of ritual, but even though it is a ritual and everyone knows it, one is expected to act as if the ritual were infused with genuine spontaneity and feeling. Since everyone acts in the expected way and is, in a manner of speaking, in on the secret, then somehow the most empty and ritualistic of occasions can become infused with meaning.That aura of ritual extends to human relations. One starts out pretending to be someone's bosom buddy, enthusiastic colleague, or eager supplier even when one does not really like the other person or finds the job a bore while the customer is a demanding jerk who does not begin in financial terms to justify the effort one puts into satisfying his or her needs. Yet because one is expected to act as if one really cared for the well-being of the other, that one's colleagues are the world's greatest co-workers and nothing could be more important than filling the needs of whatever customer one is dealing with at the moment, one does end up actually internalizing feelings of affection, respect, and commitment to doing the job at hand as well as it can possibly be done. One ends up with a wide circle of people about whom one cares very deeply--and a sense that one is cared for by many others. And one comes quickly to understand the tremendous advantage to a society where practically everyone can be relied upon to do what they say they have promised to do, and to do it well.
But this resolute refusal to notice contradictions--to act as if everything were the way it should be even when everything isn't--has a key political dimension that is often overlooked. It may be the source of what makes Japan so alluring and successful; it also, as I noted above, explains much of the tragedy of modern Japanese history. For it creates almost ideal conditions for exploitation.
Also, Goffman and other social interactionists and psychologists. I think we underestimate, or prefer not to notice, how broad and deep ritualistic behavior goes. "If you can fake sincerity...it becomes real."
And yes, it is learned behavior by those on the lower levels of hierarchical chains.
Sometimes I read bob and wonder if I'm not really pissing off the Japanese person I work with. Then I read the other things bob says.
I read bob and wonder if I'm not really pissing off the Japanese person I work with.
That time you busted down the cubicle walls to build a barricade around the water cooler was probably a bit much.
We have regular offices (with walls and related features) and a fountain for water.
Wow. How civilized.
I actually have an office too, for almost the first time it my career. I wouldn't call it "regular", but it does have a door. Which is amazing.
As to whether it is really "social sensitivity" or "relational intelligence," my impression it is usually, say in a work situation, about reading cues of difference or dysfunction and responding with the ritualistic response that will return the situation to order and predictability.
Then I read the other things bob says.
You could always read what I paste, but I suppose that is too much for you. Your personal experience with one transplant whatever will effortlessly outweigh the accumulated knowledge of wide varieties of scholars.
I have always had a real hard time playing the "Congratulations" "So sorry for your loss" game, at least over an extended period of relationship. It's not that I don't recognize cues or know what to do, not Aspy I don't think, just that playing ritual within deep emotional investment seems to really hurt.
And I do worry if my distaste for social ritual is somewhat misogynistic, but I comfort myself that most of that ritualistic behavior is the trained role of the subaltern and abject, with false consciousness.
I have an office but it has internal glass walls on two sides, which makes it essentially useless. I take my pants off in my office twice a day; I need opaque walls.
You should consult the accumulated knowledge of a wide variety of scholars on that.
A wide variety of scholars think work goes better without pants, anyway.
Spike, I assume that you've seen this cartoon.
Ooooh, I have lots of stuff on this subject, or close to it. Searching through my notes for Guy Standing on the precariat and "feminization" of the work force, I cam across Lemke on Biopolitics
Rather, the meaning of biopolitics lies in its ability to make visible the always contingent, always precarious difference between politics and life, culture and nature, between the realm of the intangible and unquestioned, on the one hand, and the sphere of moral and legal action, on the other.Biopolitics shows that the apparently stable boundary between the natural and the political, which both naturalist and politicist approaches must presuppose, is less an origin than an effect of political action
Is the "congratulations" ritual natural or political? Moral?
Essentialism has said it's natural.
Anyway, the Standing is highly recommended.
but I comfort myself that most of that ritualistic behavior is the trained role of the subaltern and abject, with false consciousness.
I get the theory behind this, but in my experience it seems especially important for the superior to perform these rituals in a convincingly sincere manner.
Life in a hierarchy rewards kissing up and kicking down.
There's an American, maybe Western generally, valorization of refusal to accept authority/function in a hierarchy as a virtue, and a particularly masculine virtue, and I strongly think this is misguided.
I mean, you're right, life in a hierarchy makes kissing up and kicking down possible, because without some kind of hierarchy up and down don't mean anything. Life in a hierarchy also makes accomplishing any task that requires more than about five people possible, which would include pretty much everything humans do.
School is the obvious hierarchical situation for a kid, but it's not hierarchical out of blind love of authoritarianism, it's hierarchical because that's the only practical way for one teacher to facilitate learning for twenty kids at once. And things like sitting quietly when class restarts are actually useful in accomplishing the practical goals of learning something.
I think you're right, that getting kids working together in groups to accomplish difficult tasks that they're invested in without supervision would be a great way to enhance their social skills, but it's also the kind of thing that's difficult for a parent to set up: I'm trying to think of how you'd do that in practice, and I'm drawing a blank.
Clubs for things like robot design, team puzzle contests, etc., I'd think.
give kids something useful to get done with a group-- working young, meaningful chores beyond just picking up after yourself are common
"Just try not to antagonize your brother for five fucking minutes." Is this meaningful enough? I really want them to learn this skill.
getting kids working together in groups to accomplish difficult tasks that they're invested in without supervision would be a great way to enhance their social skills, but it's also the kind of thing that's difficult for a parent to set up: I'm trying to think of how you'd do that in practice, and I'm drawing a blank.
This is where Minecraft comes in.
Speaking of Minecraft, I'm trying to install the PixelMon mod but it looks like I have to install a virus on my computer for it to work. Is there another way?
42: My kids' school has a lot of those kinds of things; both clubs and in-class projects, and mmmmaybe they're effectively teaching social skills? In practice, they seem largely to turn into solo projects by the most invested kid in the group, or crash and burn entirely for lack of coordinated investment.
Newt just came out of this competition. He was completely gung ho about it and put in a great deal of effort, and had a team of three, of which one was completely checked out and the second of which would accomplish minor tasks if closely directed. I don't think it improved his, or anyone else's, group-working skills in the absence of across-the-board motivation to come out with a good result.
I think team sports - if the kid actually enjoys the sport - can be really good for this sort of thing, too. I mean, the reason team sports can get toxic is that there can be an excessive amount of hierarchy and social rituals.
Although that's clearly not where girls typically learn it, so maybe it doesn't work so well.
Maybe the group success in the OP doesn't come so much from being able to read other people as from general people-pleasing.
Right, although again I'd think of the value of team sports as being partially about functioning successfully under authority; you're learning to be both horizontally sensitive to your teammates and vertically sensitive to your coach.
I tend to stereotype them as better than average on social/emotional cues
This is my experience also. Sample size: 2, speaking purely of career military types.
Very sociable people can be total dicks in groupwork, because they accurately perceive that they can just slack off.
49: The thing is, people-pleasing isn't possible without sensitivity. If you're trying to kiss up, or be abject, or flatter, and you're not sensitive to the target's feelings, you're just annoying. So, possibly groups work better with more people-pleasers in them, but any effective people-pleaser is going to be a socially sensitive person.
I'm trying to install the PixelMon mod but it looks like I have to install a virus on my computer for it to work. Is there another way?
Fucking PixelMon. The problem may be that the Pixelmon site sends you through AdFly links to get the downloads. These AdFly links are very well crafted to get you to download malware (some will even start the malware download automatically). If you click on "skip ad" enough, and dodge all the fake Download buttons, you should be able to get the the real install. Its about 180 MB. You also have to install Forge.
If you can't find a clean link to the download, I can provide one for you to get it off my server, but it will have to wait until this evening.
I think its criminal on the part of the PixelMon people to expose an audience of mostly kids to malware like this, but it seems to be a rife problem within the Minecraft mod scene. I'm hoping Microsoft will crack down on it.
Thanks. I'll try to find the real install now that I know one exists. If that doesn't work, I may trouble you for the link.
There are two different things going on here, surely? Kid A is pretty bad at reading people (I'm not sure she really believed that other people were really real until she was about 12) but turned into a good leader, is great at getting a group to get stuff done, and so on. C is like that too tbh.
There's an American, maybe Western generally, valorization of refusal to accept authority/function in a hierarchy as a virtue, and a particularly masculine virtue, and I strongly think this is misguided.
Mulan was a rebel.
effective people-pleaser is going to be a socially sensitive person.
The way to kiss up is to sell out or disable your competitors and to bribe your superiors, or maybe disable them if they're a problem. The idea that feelings come first is basically crazy to me-- feelings matter to the extent that they enable or inhibit productive activity.
It does not usually matter whether people nearby actually "like" you, only that they agree to pretend to do so. Many people are so poorly motivated or have such poor execution that watching them for a while is sufficient to quickly identify externally apparent strengths and weakness-- military people are OK with this in general, but lots of others also. The less said or learned about other peoples' private thoughts and lives, the better, for 9/10 of people.
I comfort myself that most of that ritualistic behavior is the trained role of the subaltern and abject, with false consciousness.
This makes me laugh so much. Adding this to my idiolect, replacing "fuck you."
If its learned, how do you teach it?
Like most schools, Last Chance Community College teaches small group communication. With adults, teaching it is a lot like teaching critical thinking. You are teaching self monitoring, focusing on common mistakes to be on the look out for.
We in the Division of Arts and Huge Manatees have been considering lining up the communications, critical thinking, and composition courses more carefully so that the same messages are reinforced all along.
Funny. I was thinking of using it in place of "Excuse me."
The idea that feelings come first is basically crazy to me-- feelings matter to the extent that they enable or inhibit productive activity.
Sure. But the extent to which they enable or inhibit productive activity is lots, always, for everyone. No one interacts with other people on a purely rational emotionless level. If you're trying to get something done with other people, being able to perceive whether their emotional state is such as is likely to enable or to inhibit productive activity, and act in such a way so as to promote productive emotional states in others, is very useful.
The primary goal is, of course, getting the job done. But towards that end, Napoleon had it right: "The moral is to the physical as three to one."
Mental note: do a :%s/excuse me/fuck you/g when interpreting all future conversations with Moby. It might not be right, but it will be fun.
The primary goal is, of course, getting the job done
Gosh! What party poopers! I thought we were mostly here to have fun.
But towards that end, Napoleon had it right: "The moral is to the physical as three to one."
Shut up, Napoleon!
Publish and be damned?
I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me?
These rubber boots are great at keeping my feet dry!
School is the obvious hierarchical situation for a kid, but it's not hierarchical out of blind love of authoritarianism, it's hierarchical because that's the only practical way for one teacher to facilitate learning for twenty kids at once. And things like sitting quietly when class restarts are actually useful in accomplishing the practical goals of learning something.
Fuck a bunch of these lies. School is structured this way because it's most convenient for the teacher, and because children aren't deemed worthy of regard as full moral agents. Call that something other than 'blind love of authoritarianism' if you want, but in practice it's close enough to be indistinguishable. Saying it's necessary or even advantageous for learning is pure horseshit.
Wait, not everyone covers roast beef in a layer of pate and a puff pastry crust? What are they, barbarians?
The pastry gets all soggy in the Crock Pot.
65,67,69: This would be an interesting category in the $20,000 Pyramid.
68: I'm taking the 20-1 ratio of kids to teachers as given, at which point a certain amount of quiet obedience is necessary, because it is literally impossible for one person to pay attention to twenty children who are moving and speaking simultaneously. You can call that the convenience of the teacher or blind authoritarianism, I call it the limits of human capacity.
What did Wellington say?
Wellington said nothing. He just put the boot in.
it is literally impossible for one person to pay attention to twenty children who are moving and speaking simultaneously
And this is what inevitably happens in groups of 20 people with no clear authoritarian leader?
Schoolage children? Pretty much.
Urple, oh renowned eater of all things, stick to your area of expertise, because you really don't know what you're talking about here.
77: This isn't a matter of expertise, it's a philosophical difference.
Fuck a bunch of these lies. School is structured this way because it's most convenient for the teacher, and because children aren't deemed worthy of regard as full moral agents. Call that something other than 'blind love of authoritarianism' if you want, but in practice it's close enough to be indistinguishable.
Preach it. The modern classroom was Bismark's idea.
77: I don't have any area of expertise, asshole. But I've done a fair amount of reading on this topic.
It's really hard to have group projects in which everyone contributes roughly equally. The circumstances in which I most frequently see it happen is scientific collaborations, but that's because each person generally brings some distinct skill or expertise that can't be easily replicated by the others. That level of specialization doesn't generally exist with grade school aged kids.
Best thing to do with twenty kids is stick them all on an island, and give them a conch shell and tell them only the kid with the conch shell is allowed to speak.
Spike, is your son aware of his own emotions? It's been helpful for my older girls to learn how emotions are expressed in the body, so I heard Mara say, "My shoulders hang down, my knees turn in, my stomach feels tight; I'm shy!" That's been a lot more helpful for both of them than those posters of faces ever were, and I can link you to some cards you can buy if you think it might help. Mine alternate between exceptional empathy and unusual cluelessness both about themselves and others.
Saying it's necessary or even advantageous for learning is pure horseshit.
It's clearly necessary if you're thinking in terms of classes of twenty and only a total naif would think otherwise. It isn't particularly advantageous for learning compared, for example, with groups of four or five children to each adult, ideally in the open air in summer and always in stimulating environments. Good luck getting that funded.
It's really hard to have group projects in which everyone contributes roughly equally.
That's because you're imaging people doing things that at least some members of the group (possibly all of them) don't actually want to do. Watch a group of kids engage in unsupervised play and you will see group project after group project--many of which are quite complicated!--in which everyone contributes with enthusiasm.
80: Clicking through and looking at some of that, none of the stuff I looked at looks like a classroom without hierarchy and obedience. It looks like classrooms that use democratic methods to get investment from the students in the applicable rules and the teacher's authority. Which is fine with me, and probably works well -- there's no particular virtue I can think of in submission to arbitrary, illegitimate authority. But it still looks like hierarchy to me.
Yeah, he's aware of his own. Where he falls short is in perceiving that other people might feel emotions too, and recognizing that his actions and words might affect these.
Does steelhead count as salmon? Because if not, the sushi lady lied to me. No doubt as part of a ritual.
86 is fair. Perhaps I misinterpreted the sense in which you were using the word "hierarchical" in 41, which I had interpreted to be usage more in line with earlier comments in the thread, instead of being used in the limited sense described in 86. If so, I apologize.
Steelhead counts. It swims upstream, doesn't it?
But they have to dye it or it isn't pink. Which is probably true for some salmon.
89: Well, honestly, I think that for the purpose of inculcating social sensitivity, functioning successfully in any hierarchy, democratic and legitimate or arbitrary and tyrannical, is going to help. Arbitrary and tyrannical hierarchies are less preferred for obvious reasons, but they're still going to be a good way to teach attentiveness to the states of minds of the people who supervise you. I just don't think they're necessarily any better along those lines than the kind of hierarchy you prefer.
I'm amusing myself by wondering whether Moby (a) ordered steelhead, but has been brought ordinary salmon (he can tell, upon tasting), or (b) ordered salmon, but has been served steelhead (with assurance from the waitress that it was a sort of salmon so basically the same thing).
The modern classroom was Bismark's idea.
So was the welfare state. He had a lot of good ideas.
I don't think they dye the salmon, just the salmon food.
93: It wasn't that fancy. I was looking at the sushi case (self-service) the woman asked me what I was looking for. I said, "salmon". The pointed out the "seaside combo," which I took. I read the label while eating it.
It was also mislabeled to the extent that it wasn't a combo in sense of being different types of rolls. It was also salmon (or a close approximation thereof) and avocado.
The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood.
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.
96: that's scenario (b). And you should know that Steelhead are actually just rainbow trout.
He had a lot of good ideas.
What do you have against Alsace and Lorraine?
Maybe for $7, I should figure it was close enough.
"Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal ... A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all ... I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where ... Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off."
It's clearly necessary if you're thinking in terms of classes of twenty and only a total naif would think otherwise.
I'm not sure my wife even has a single class that small this year. Getting everyone in the class to STFU and stay on task is a huge hurdle for new teachers and even experienced ones, especially in the poor districts. People who claim otherwise usually have never set foot on that side of town, let alone in one of the classrooms. Think of those scenes in the The Wire when Prez switches to teaching and how at first his class is absolute chaos. That's not fiction. That's based directly off of the experience of Ed Burns, who taught jr. high in Baltimore after retiring from the police dept.
See 86, 89 -- I think Urple was talking about what he sees as a philosophically preferable set of techniques for getting the class to STFU and stay on task. The stuff he's talking about doesn't look obviously nuts; it's the kind of things that might work. But in any case, he doesn't seem to have been arguing for a totally unstructured classroom.
This thread got surprisingly focused on nineteenth century European military leaders given the subject matter.
106: Men go to war with France like this, and women go to war with France like that.
The thing is, people-pleasing isn't possible without sensitivity. If you're trying to kiss up, or be abject, or flatter, and you're not sensitive to the target's feelings, you're just annoying. So, possibly groups work better with more people-pleasers in them, but any effective people-pleaser is going to be a socially sensitive person.
I don't think this is true. A clunky people-pleaser without sensitivity will think "To please the teacher, get the group to the finish line." They may not know when their teammates words are manipulative, or shirking work, or what, but they know basically that their whole group benefits if they finish the task well, and so they will put their intentions on that.
Oh, you mean that someone who's a people-pleaser will be reliably motivated? Could be. I mean, I think motivation, rather than social or other skills, is the problem that screws up most school-related group work -- that the unmotivated group members just slack, and there's not much the remainder of the group can do about it. (I mean, I suppose an interpersonal genius can be inspirationally motivational enough to get slackers into line, but that's really hard.)
The implication of the reported research was that they were studying group capability rather than motivation, and so lack of motivation shouldn't have been a big problem, but who's to say they were successful in that.
The thing is, Bismarck (and, for that matter, Hitler and Stalin) were awesome at the social awareness thing. Key skill for a small-group politician, which all three were very good at, and which are necessary for being a successful dictator/ruler of men.
I mean those guys were awesome at getting groups to work effectively. Yes, rule with an iron fist, but it also takes social sensitivity skills.
Right. Being socially sensitive does not necessarily make you a good person, or a nice person. (Being a nice person is likely to make you socially sensitive, but that's different.) I've talked about a partner I worked for at my last job who was astonishingly emotionally/socially sensitive and adept, and used his powers solely for evil -- the worst sadist (not in the fun whips and chains sense of the word) I've ever met.
On the Veldt children were never taught in large, age segregated groups.
I had the impression Stalin's signature strategy was being extremely erratic and unpredictable, so everyone under him stayed on their toes. Maybe that was just once he was at the top, though.
"Your group project is to avoid being shot by the NKVD."
Except that the NKVD had a group project of shooting so many people.
What do you have against Alsace and Lorraine?
So he had a few bad ideas too. But, be it said, Napoleon III blinked first in 1870.
Maybe that was just once he was at the top, though.
On the way up his signature strategy was staying firmly in the background so that someone else took the flack if things went wrong.
Also, research and development for the Moustache of Authority.
Hitler seems to have more or less permanently made the "Hitler 'stache" unacceptable. Do people wear Stalin moustaches?
Katie Surrance over at LGM covers the same article, with h/t to LB
When you make it clear to your participants that you're testing their empathy, women think something like, "I am woman. Women love children, flowers, and harmony," and men think "I am man. Men like cars, numbers, and weapons." So women amp up their own performance to be consistent with their activated stereotype of themselves, and possibly men even suppress their own performance. In an experiment to test this hypothesis, Klein and Hodges found that paying men and women to be accurate (in other words, amping up both groups' motivation) wiped out any gender differences.
Always link and paste, cause commonism
Speaking of the Moustache of Authority...
68,80,85. Although if I'm doing something else and not participating now, preach it urple.
Metternich (who was probably like LB's unpleasant ex-boss) on social skills:
In my whole life I have only known ten or twelve persons with whom it was pleasant to speak,--i. e., who keep to the subject, do not repeat themselves, and do not talk of themselves; men who do not listen to their own voice, who are cultivated enough not to lose themselves in commonplaces, and, lastly, who possess tact and good taste enough not to elevate their own persons above their subjects.
But his job description was basically, "Talk with assholes."
44:
"Just try not to antagonize your brother for five fucking minutes." Is this meaningful enough? I really want them to learn this skill.
I was talking with my (grown) son, the mathematician, about a computer problem, and he said that he is not esp. computer competent but that his general approach to computer problems is "Perturb and observe". Maybe that's what your kids are doing as they go about learning how to deal with others.
121: Oh, I like her take on it. Yeah, I think there are a lot of people who act socially insensitive because they think it's a higher-status position to take (and that gender plays into it because social insensitivity is perceived as more masculine). And that a culture (workplace or otherwise) that explicitly values social sensitivity is going to see a lot more of it.
I just saw The Imitation Game with the kids. Wow, the history was much worse than I was expecting -- I hadn't read reviews closely. But in this context, nothing I've ever read about Turing before suggested he was that kind of socially completely alienated weirdo; eccentric, sure, but not having tragic conversations about how human interaction was absolutely incomprehensible to him. But when our culture wants to show someone being a genius, we tend to assume that implies that they're incapable of interpersonal connection in direct proportion to how brilliant they are.
But when our culture wants to show someone being a genius, we tend to assume that implies that they're incapable of interpersonal connection in direct proportion to how brilliant they are.
Someone should make a movie about Feynman.
Or John Bardeen, the two-time Nobel Laureate who was apparently best known in his neighborhood for putting on enormous 4th of July cookouts every summer.
Someone should make a movie about Feynman.
Someone did.
Barbara McClintock should be on the twenty dollar bill. Also she would be a great subject for a movie, possibly a Lifetime movie.
Gauss and Gibbs were both supposed to kind people-- Gauss had business sense, Gibbs was an introvert.
Curious to hear stories of the partner from 112. Sounds sort of Cathy Ames-ish. (AKA my only real literary crush, before her whorehouse went totally S&M.)
Barbara McClintock should be on the twenty dollar bill.
I'm pretty sure you could find plenty of Republican support by mentioning all the the current portrait subject did against the cause of state's rights.
132: I can't think of any good ones -- it was all petty stuff, but he was really good at making the people around him miserable.
The person asking this question seems like a perfect example. He clearly understands that telling his cow-orker he's in love with her would be the wrong thing to do, he realizes it would make her uncomfortable, but he still wants to do it anyway. The only real difference between him and the guy in 112 is a conscience.
(See also the observation that harassers who often try to skate by on "I'm socially inept!" actually show *exquisite* understanding of social nuances.)
Re: 118
Not really true, if you read Young Stalin. Ruthless, selfish, boorish, yes. But pre-1917 Stalin was also pretty brave and resourceful -- multiple prison escapes, daring escapes from the Okhrana, etc -- and surprisingly intellectual. His activities (robbery, terrorism, etc) basically funded the Bolsheviks in exile. He comes across as someone you wouldn't want to admire, but far from the faceless plotting functionary of Trotskyite mythologising.
Going back to my lunch (metaphorically), I just noticed that the featured article on Wikipedia is about the Rainbow Trout and is the page you get when you search "steelhead" as it is just a rainbow trout that goes to the ocean for a bit.
Every reformation has a counterreformation. Send up the Apo-signal!
129. John von Neumann was allegedly the life of the party, or rather of many parties.
I had a prof in college who took care of Fermi's car when he was out of town. No word on his party-animal-ness.
Another said that Dirac was a very nice fellow, the time they met.
And, now that I think about it, I don't know a single damn person with a good first hand Feynman story (despite like 9 years in a Caltech orbit).
One person with a nice secondhand one--a friend of a tech at school who knew F late in life and had dinner at his house on occasion.
What do you have against Alsace and Lorraine?
NOT AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO
Yeah, I think there are a lot of people who act socially insensitive because they think it's a higher-status position to take (and that gender plays into it because social insensitivity is perceived as more masculine).
Yes, this exactly describes the behavior of some of my co-workers.
While I'm deeply socially awkward in general, I kick ass at the "what emotion is this set of eyes expressing" tests
This is me! I don't think I'm a woman though.
I just figured out that Serial is about a real murder. I somehow read a whole thread with you guys talking about it without realizing it wasn't fiction.
Speaking of violence, I don't understand what "The gun was loaded when it fell, according to the complaint, and though it went off when it hit the ground, the round in the chamber did not discharge" can mean.
Anyway, gun safety people.
Hmm, I wonder if blogs that include women as front-page posters are smarter than those that are all men? Trying to think of how you could do that experiment.
81 It's really hard to have group projects in which everyone contributes roughly equally. The circumstances in which I most frequently see it happen is scientific collaborations
God, I wish that was true of more than one of my collaborators.
I have successfully installed Pixelmon without, to my knowledge, installing any malware. Hooray.
142 Another said that Dirac was a very nice fellow, the time they met.
Weird! I thought the consensus was that Dirac was a space alien.
If anyone makes a movie about Feynman I hope he's the villain.
I know who can write the screenplay.
152, 153: yeah, that thought did come to mind.
A movie based on the comic in 153 would actually be awesome. (Attention commenters with Hollywood connections...)
I have successfully installed Pixelmon without, to my knowledge, installing any malware. Hooray.
Nice. If its version 3.3.8 you've installed, my kid would love your kid to visit to his Pixelmon server. The server is at "ponyexpressgame.com:8866"
Note the oddball port number - thats because his regular Minecraft server is on the default port at ponyexpressgame.com. Folks are welcome to join there too. It has a few regulars who may show up.
I've never done that before. We're out now but maybe later. Thanks.
We are way past the original topic, but I still think I should have done better here. The real subsumption of social labour is important. But If I could collect and focus, I would probably have a book. Ah well.
Christian Fuchs, Digital Labout and Marx refers back to Dallas Walker Smythe, probably the origin of one path to post-post-fuckall.
Probably one of his most influential ideas was that of the 'audience-commodity'. In "Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism", Smythe writes about monopoly capitalism's dissolution of the boundary between an individual's role as worker and buyer. Smythe believed that all non-sleeping time is work time. Work time is devoted to the production of commodities, producing and reproducing labour power. Time away from work, but not asleep is sold as a commodity to advertisers. This is the audience commodity, which perform marketing functions and work at the production and reproduction of labour power
Let's see, where was I...I was going to talk about structural intersectionality but came across this at Bady's place.
In contrast to the utilitarian subject postulated by rational choice theory, who seeks to maximize her satisfaction in a sovereign and self-enclosed fashion, contemporary neoliberal subjects of value are predom- inantly concerned with the impact their conduct has on others in their environ- ment. In other words, the valuation of human capital under conditions of financial -ized neoliberal capitalism is characterized by speculation as well as by an "other- oriented conduct" that recognizes the fact that the appreciation of one's human capital is dependent on the judgments and estimations of others. This effectively puts entrepreneurial workers in a paradox- ical and precarious position: while, on the one hand, their human capital cannot be disentangled from the bodies that harbor and accumulate the capacities and skills that allow them to appreciate themselves, on the other hand, the relation to their human capital cannot be properly defined as ownership because it is not entirely theirs to sell (Feher 2009: 34). Rather, they can only invest in it, hoping that its value will increase when positive external evaluations enable self-appreciation in a competitive job market whose parameters have become increasingly uncertain