"....in a word, is conformism"....and SHYNESS surely? which doesn't equate with conformism in my experience. "Silence is the sound of missed opportunities".....have you never wanted someone to just shut the hell up?
Sorry to be contrary here....maybe I should just have kept silent.
I think you are right about the shyness aspect, although it is probably a mix. Shyness can be overcome, and definitely needs to be with regards to children. And adults... my wife and I used to argue over who would call the Chinese restaurant to put in our order for take out. I know personally I am prone to just want to sit and not talk to anyone because it is easier, but after making a conscious decision to be more outgoing I find it a lot easier, and more pleasant.
And usually if you pay attention you can pick up on the signs the other person just wants you to shut up. That is a very important skill to learn as well! :D
Here's a wonderful aspect of humanity: There are far more nice strangers than strangers who will do you harm. I read somewhere that a child should be taught when advice is needed to "always" initiate an interaction with a random adult and never wait for a random adult to offer help.
Yep, that is exactly what I taught my kids. Not "stranger danger" but "strangers who target you danger". Also unrealistic statistically but good enough for small kids to grasp without worrying about he nuance.
It is true that there are far more nice strangers than strangers who will do you harm, but the strangers that do you harm are many, many times more impactful than the nice strangers, so the expected value of talking to a stranger is probably still negative. (Eg compare a stranger smiling and saying "hi" on the one hand, with being mugged on the other.)
And this goes *especially* for women. Why do you think so many of them are scared of walking home on their own at night?
Your description of typical behavior doesn't match my empirical observations. In fact small children usually talk to strangers unsolicited with no filter at all.
My Western European friends often said Americans are "fake", particularly re: the amount of superficial small-talk with strangers that they observed I did or other Americans did. But the many that ended up moving here then changed their tune and realized its quite amazing that a non-homogenous nation of people (race, religion, income, etc...) can engage so easily with strangers, which happens to be a beautiful feature of America.
I do it for my own selfish reasons - sometimes out of curiousity, boredom; often to make the places I frequent in my community a little more friendly and open; sometimes to extract useful information. Now thay I have young kids, I'm trying to show them empirically how to engage with strangers, but I seem to be less successful in that endeavor - they just think they have a weird dad!
Also, dogs. I don't even *like* people, but I'll be very friendly if I get to say hi to your dog. Dogs are why I can still do full squats without a warmup at 55; dogs that shy away from 6' tall me think 3' tall me is *adorable*.
Based on what I have read from Caplan, I am slightly surprised to see him saying this. At the same time, though, I'm not surprised at all. He has a lot of interesting ideas and some radical positions. Some of it I agree with. This topic is definitely a big deal. People need to be more non-conformist.
One of the biggest benefits of me spending so much time on Wikipedia is that it’s given me a base level of knowledge that allows me to discuss almost any topic that people might be interested in. And if they are into something I’m not familiar with, that’s even more exciting because it presents an opportunity to learn about something new. I think people struggle to think of things to talk about, but if you’re authentically curious about the world the conversation topics are endless. People are interesting.
Do you think curiosity can be learned? Even if it can, how do you persuade people to be more open-minded? By definition the people who most need to hear this message will be the least receptive to it, because they're the least receptive to new ideas in general.
Psychadelics... mushrooms and LSD. The reason they are so effective as a treatment for depression, anxiety, and addiction is because they increase openness. Our brain like to keep our models of the world simple, because that was useful for our survival, but it’s full of flaws and biases in the modern world. Most depression and anxiety is just having an irrational model of the world that is rooted in generally false beliefs, formed through a very limited (often traumatic) set of experiences. The psychedelic experience makes you acutely aware of how limited your singular experience is, and as a result any beliefs you’ve formed based solely on your perception of life events come into question. So if you’re depressed because you had an alcoholic, abusive father, your entire self concept is rooted in beliefs about yourself that arose from that very limited experience with one man. Now you can begin tearing down that model and building anew.
I’m rambling here, but to sum up, one of the second order effects that follows is an increase in curiosity over all. You realize from this experience how much there is to learn, and how much opportunities exist to become a better version of yourself.
Ngl, I've always thought the way people talk about psychedelics, not merely as a thing that people should be allowed to use because back the hell off and let me do what I want, but as a radically life-changing experience - seems kinda cultish.
I can see that, especially given I just went on an unprompted rant lol. In my naive younger days I believed psychadelics were the answer to all of the world’s problems. As I’ve grown older I’ve seen that it really depends on the person, and not everyone has the same benefits I did.
However they do increase curiosity, even permanently after one experience if cultivated. I would say for most, not all, this is true.
This is an admirably nuanced perspective. I guess I'm just too afraid to play the personality-scrambling lottery myself, like I've spent 32 years painstakingly cultivating self-knowledge and I don't want have to start that process again from scratch.
I started talking to cashiers during lockdown, when they were the only other human beings I ever saw. It helped, just a little bit, to deal with an extremely lonely time.
I wouldn't dream of talking to a stranger, other than a superficial moan about poor service, something that could be safely ignored. How intrusive! I dislike people talking to me without being asked.
On my to-do list I have: "Talk to a stranger every day." It's like buying a deep out of the money option. Or a lottery ticket. I just did a video on it, 2 minutes, check it out. https://vimeo.com/912291464?share=copy
True of college students, too. Friends say to me, "My son/daughter is majoring in economics. Would you be willing to give the kid some advice." I say "Sure. But have the kid reach out to me him/herself." That eliminates almost all inquiries.
I find I agree with most of your non-conformist takes, but it seems odd that conformism would be as wrong as it appears to be given the possible benefits. With this one especially, I find it hard to see how we ended up in a 'bad equilibrium' if most people are actually happy to be talked to.
Should there not be a baseline of 'positivism' where we assume the behaviours people are conforming to are more useful and pro-social than alternatives, in the absence of a good explanation to the contrary?
'At least in modern societies, conformism mandates silence.'
I'm not sure just how Dr. Caplan defines 'modern societies', but there's certainly no such norm in the Plains States, where I live. So long as one's not holding up a line or obviously keeping them from doing something job-related, it's quite normal to spend a few minutes exchanging small talk with clerks and cashiers. This isn't limited to small rural communities; it's common enough in large cities, as well.
A lot of conformism seems related to agreeableness, and to this mentality:
“Other peoples negative feelings matter, and i might make them uncomfortable if i engage them without explicit consent. Therefore, i shouldnt bother them”
I think one reason that telling someone lonely that other people are also lonely is because then the person sees it more like this:
“They are already uncomfortable, and might welcome me interacting with them.”
"....in a word, is conformism"....and SHYNESS surely? which doesn't equate with conformism in my experience. "Silence is the sound of missed opportunities".....have you never wanted someone to just shut the hell up?
Sorry to be contrary here....maybe I should just have kept silent.
I think you are right about the shyness aspect, although it is probably a mix. Shyness can be overcome, and definitely needs to be with regards to children. And adults... my wife and I used to argue over who would call the Chinese restaurant to put in our order for take out. I know personally I am prone to just want to sit and not talk to anyone because it is easier, but after making a conscious decision to be more outgoing I find it a lot easier, and more pleasant.
And usually if you pay attention you can pick up on the signs the other person just wants you to shut up. That is a very important skill to learn as well! :D
The thing about wanting someone to shut the hell up is, that's your problem, not the other person's.
Always annoying people is not a good way to go about life. You gotta pick up on the signs.
Here's a wonderful aspect of humanity: There are far more nice strangers than strangers who will do you harm. I read somewhere that a child should be taught when advice is needed to "always" initiate an interaction with a random adult and never wait for a random adult to offer help.
Yep, that is exactly what I taught my kids. Not "stranger danger" but "strangers who target you danger". Also unrealistic statistically but good enough for small kids to grasp without worrying about he nuance.
It is true that there are far more nice strangers than strangers who will do you harm, but the strangers that do you harm are many, many times more impactful than the nice strangers, so the expected value of talking to a stranger is probably still negative. (Eg compare a stranger smiling and saying "hi" on the one hand, with being mugged on the other.)
And this goes *especially* for women. Why do you think so many of them are scared of walking home on their own at night?
Your description of typical behavior doesn't match my empirical observations. In fact small children usually talk to strangers unsolicited with no filter at all.
My Western European friends often said Americans are "fake", particularly re: the amount of superficial small-talk with strangers that they observed I did or other Americans did. But the many that ended up moving here then changed their tune and realized its quite amazing that a non-homogenous nation of people (race, religion, income, etc...) can engage so easily with strangers, which happens to be a beautiful feature of America.
I do it for my own selfish reasons - sometimes out of curiousity, boredom; often to make the places I frequent in my community a little more friendly and open; sometimes to extract useful information. Now thay I have young kids, I'm trying to show them empirically how to engage with strangers, but I seem to be less successful in that endeavor - they just think they have a weird dad!
Also, dogs. I don't even *like* people, but I'll be very friendly if I get to say hi to your dog. Dogs are why I can still do full squats without a warmup at 55; dogs that shy away from 6' tall me think 3' tall me is *adorable*.
Based on what I have read from Caplan, I am slightly surprised to see him saying this. At the same time, though, I'm not surprised at all. He has a lot of interesting ideas and some radical positions. Some of it I agree with. This topic is definitely a big deal. People need to be more non-conformist.
One of the biggest benefits of me spending so much time on Wikipedia is that it’s given me a base level of knowledge that allows me to discuss almost any topic that people might be interested in. And if they are into something I’m not familiar with, that’s even more exciting because it presents an opportunity to learn about something new. I think people struggle to think of things to talk about, but if you’re authentically curious about the world the conversation topics are endless. People are interesting.
Do you think curiosity can be learned? Even if it can, how do you persuade people to be more open-minded? By definition the people who most need to hear this message will be the least receptive to it, because they're the least receptive to new ideas in general.
Psychadelics... mushrooms and LSD. The reason they are so effective as a treatment for depression, anxiety, and addiction is because they increase openness. Our brain like to keep our models of the world simple, because that was useful for our survival, but it’s full of flaws and biases in the modern world. Most depression and anxiety is just having an irrational model of the world that is rooted in generally false beliefs, formed through a very limited (often traumatic) set of experiences. The psychedelic experience makes you acutely aware of how limited your singular experience is, and as a result any beliefs you’ve formed based solely on your perception of life events come into question. So if you’re depressed because you had an alcoholic, abusive father, your entire self concept is rooted in beliefs about yourself that arose from that very limited experience with one man. Now you can begin tearing down that model and building anew.
I’m rambling here, but to sum up, one of the second order effects that follows is an increase in curiosity over all. You realize from this experience how much there is to learn, and how much opportunities exist to become a better version of yourself.
Ngl, I've always thought the way people talk about psychedelics, not merely as a thing that people should be allowed to use because back the hell off and let me do what I want, but as a radically life-changing experience - seems kinda cultish.
I can see that, especially given I just went on an unprompted rant lol. In my naive younger days I believed psychadelics were the answer to all of the world’s problems. As I’ve grown older I’ve seen that it really depends on the person, and not everyone has the same benefits I did.
However they do increase curiosity, even permanently after one experience if cultivated. I would say for most, not all, this is true.
This is an admirably nuanced perspective. I guess I'm just too afraid to play the personality-scrambling lottery myself, like I've spent 32 years painstakingly cultivating self-knowledge and I don't want have to start that process again from scratch.
Well, Wikipedia's interesting. ;-)
I started talking to cashiers during lockdown, when they were the only other human beings I ever saw. It helped, just a little bit, to deal with an extremely lonely time.
I wouldn't dream of talking to a stranger, other than a superficial moan about poor service, something that could be safely ignored. How intrusive! I dislike people talking to me without being asked.
Silence is violence.
On my to-do list I have: "Talk to a stranger every day." It's like buying a deep out of the money option. Or a lottery ticket. I just did a video on it, 2 minutes, check it out. https://vimeo.com/912291464?share=copy
True of college students, too. Friends say to me, "My son/daughter is majoring in economics. Would you be willing to give the kid some advice." I say "Sure. But have the kid reach out to me him/herself." That eliminates almost all inquiries.
I find I agree with most of your non-conformist takes, but it seems odd that conformism would be as wrong as it appears to be given the possible benefits. With this one especially, I find it hard to see how we ended up in a 'bad equilibrium' if most people are actually happy to be talked to.
Should there not be a baseline of 'positivism' where we assume the behaviours people are conforming to are more useful and pro-social than alternatives, in the absence of a good explanation to the contrary?
'At least in modern societies, conformism mandates silence.'
I'm not sure just how Dr. Caplan defines 'modern societies', but there's certainly no such norm in the Plains States, where I live. So long as one's not holding up a line or obviously keeping them from doing something job-related, it's quite normal to spend a few minutes exchanging small talk with clerks and cashiers. This isn't limited to small rural communities; it's common enough in large cities, as well.
Alex, Good point and perhaps one of the justifications for a monopoly on the legal use of threat-of-punishment; a government.
A lot of conformism seems related to agreeableness, and to this mentality:
“Other peoples negative feelings matter, and i might make them uncomfortable if i engage them without explicit consent. Therefore, i shouldnt bother them”
I think one reason that telling someone lonely that other people are also lonely is because then the person sees it more like this:
“They are already uncomfortable, and might welcome me interacting with them.”