My motto is "Follow the Dread". If I dread public speaking I should do it, if I dread setting up IPsec VPNs I should do more of it, if I dread working with money and run a business as opposed to working solely as a technical person I should do it, so on and so forth.
"The Dread" is a good north star for discovering what to improve next, since most Dreads are somewhat common/shared among peers, communities and colleagues. Being able to do something nobody likes to do is a good edge against the world.
This aligns with my motto of “10% beyond comfort” where you push yourself out of your comfort zone 10% (or more) and learn. You get the dread. You get the “I’m not qualified” vibe. You get the experience. Next time won’t be nearly as bad and a few times more and you’ll be comfortable. A dozen more and you might become an expert. You may actually find you love it.
To the articles point though is that you can be offended and feel anxiety and dread without having to completely shut down the entire discussion. This being in your 10% beyond comfort zone, this is where you - in your offended state - should actually be the most open to learning. Why did they say that? Why do they think that way? Is there reasoning or is it impulsive? How to I articulate an argument for my side when they behave this way?
This is how adults handle being offended during a discussion. You can even voice that you are offended by the remarks. What you don’t have is carte blanche to sling assaults and prevent freedom of speech.
A personal anecdote: I don't like public speaking, but I do it frequently to large audiences. I became much better at it and I feel much less uncomfortable now than before.
...But the dread is still there. I still regret it every time I have to do it. It's just less stressful now.
I get what the author is trying to convey but for me, I find avoiding sources of offense leads to a happier life. Primarily, this means low social media consumption. I spend about 15 minutes a week catching up with the happenings of my family and a few actual friends. I try to ignore the rest, but even when I see something I disagree with or take offense to, I just don’t engage. I also try to mirror this in meatspace. I certainly like a debate with certain people, it’s a great conversation. But most people I find just like to argue and will stand their ground until death even when faced with evidence/proof/reason of the contrary. I don’t need that type of debate. I’m always willing to admit I may be wrong or have outdated/incomplete information and a lot of people just don’t engage on that same level. I suppose this represents the “shutting down” but why would I continue a conversation where someone is obviously having strong convictions and I believe it’s absolute rubbish (based on lies, wrong facts, regurgitated news media opinions as truths, etc)
I feel like I could have written this exact comment. Most arguments just aren't worth it. You have to know that the other person has this same approach (willingness to see another point of view, plus manners) or else it's just not worth it. Pretty often I'll offer a "disagreement" and if I'm not satisfied that my debating partner is listening, that's it, I'm out.
For the article, I'm ok with the message, but the title is just clickbait. You don't need to get offended more, you just need to be aware of when you are and try to figure out why.
> I find avoiding sources of offense leads to a happier life.
I was talking politics with my girlfriend last night and I made pretty much the same point, though more pointed at politics. My argument is that really the most important things in one's life is family, friends and your local community, everything else (such as national politics) might as well be a game show called "news" that everyone tunes into every day.
If you decide to tune into that game show every day, make sure you keep it at "arms length", getting too close will make you go crazy.
There's a difference between paying no attention to politics at all and avoiding getting wrapped up the angry day-to-day drama where you pay a large emotional price but your input matters zero.
>A shitstorm ensued, the Church got shutdown-offended, and Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest. We’re so offended, we can’t even disagree, we shut shit down.
This is really bad history in a very relevant way to the topic. The Church wasn't really offended, they disagreed. The church in that case included most scientists at the time. This was because Galileo's theory didn't actually check out at all when he made the argument as it couldn't explain the observed sizes of most stars. This was because diffraction wasn't known yet as a principle. When he was challenged on this he basically wrote an entire tract that today would basically be considered a 'shitpost', where he insulted most scientists and church figures for pointing the problems with his theory out.
So it was actually Galileo who was offended, the Church who disagreed (and then was potentially also offended), and completely independent of this Galileo just happened to be right
Not the person you replied to, but there's some evidence that Galileo's persecution was due to a personal spat between him and Pope Urban, and the latter's insecurities, rather than philosophical differences.
I thought so at first, but no, that's not what the author is after. The article is about _recognizing the experience of being offended_. Near the end, the author says what to do with that recognition:
> By getting offended more, you actually get to figure out who you are and what you care about. You react less, respond more. You develop real compassion. You practice alchemy upon yourself.
I think that "reacting less" would prevent flamewars.
I agree with the premise of this article; that discussion would be improved if we were more explicit about when we disagree and when we are offended.
However, it seems to me that conflating disagreement and offense, and in particular using that to shut down discussion, is a symptom not a root cause. I believe that the root cause is that one half of the current culture war has refused to recognize the validity of offense or prioritize the issues that are at the heart of the offense.
As a result, the other side has concluded that conflating disagreement & offense, and using that as a weapon against opponents, is their only option.
This is a great point. I suppose my hope is that by being less shutdown-offended yourself, you can have an open heart to those that are shutdown-offended. Because engaging with such people is crucial to understanding what’s actually going on (rather than just lobbing facts and conflicting histories back and forth). Trauma is real!
Thanks for the reply! For what it's worth. After reading what I wrote again I think that this is a better way to put what I was saying: (I was going to edit my original, but I'll post it here since you've already replied.)
In terms of improving discussion by differentiating between disagreement and offense:
I think that in order for that to work, it is important that offense is treated as valid and worth addressing. First because, as the article points out, offense is often based on valid fears and concerns. Second because otherwise people will feel the need to present their offense as disagreement in order to get it taken seriously.
Admittedly, I wrote this post 3 years ago when I was seeking clarity around disagreement during a wild time. Re-reading it now, in yet another wild time (3 years "wiser" aka having learned how to change a diaper or two), I missed out on compassion for those who are offended. Like you said, if it's important to find a mutual way forward, then it is also worth addressing the fears + emotional lives of those that are offended.
Wrt "other sides" and the mechanics of engaging therewith: I have to accept that the person on the other side of the conversation feels that I'm an animal of lower fundamental intelligence and agency, deserving not of dignity, but confinement, if not slaughter. The conversation can't continue unless I accept this on its face and try, still, to reach common ground. I'm sure you can understand that this is not a trivial ask. And while I don't think the same of him, a commensurate concession of ego would go a long way toward creating in him the mindset of mutual solution-making rather than final solution-imposing.
An unstated premise of this article is that most people are self-reflective and introspective. Most people aren't. Being offended is exactly the emotional response we need less of, no matter whether that is coupled with some supposedly helpful self-reflection that should follow.
I will posit we need less of any kind activity or thought that puts ourselves--thoughts, feelings, proclivities, reactions--at the center. You just aren't that important. Stop focusing on yourself and just follow facts. Listen to other people. Not "active listening" or trying to find a way in to insert your own thoughts, conclusions or bright ideas. Just bloody listen and follow facts and stop thinking your opinions amount to more than a hill of beans. You aren't that dang important and your ego is wily, desperately maneuvering to put it at the center of your thoughts. Offense is just one of its tactics.
Stop being offended that the sky is blue, stars burn hydrogen and termites eat your walls.
I'd be surprised if even 10% of people--Americans at least--are capable of regular introspection. It is not a trait I have been able to identify in many others.
Interestingly, this posts headline offended me. I'm glad I read it in its entirety, but the entire way through I was struggling with dismissing the article because of a similar opinion to your own.
>An unstated premise of this article is that most people are self-reflective and introspective. Most people aren't. Being offended is exactly the emotional response we need less of, no matter whether that is coupled with some supposedly helpful self-reflection that should follow.
I do find that intentially 'offending' people using facts and science on racism, sexism, ageism, nationalism, and all the other deeply rooted -isms that one stumbles upon does nothing to sprur an introspective change. It often backfires to the point of others defending their initial viewpoint.
I have a similar script in my head: Notice when I'm angry. Not, get angry more, but notice it, because it's pointing right at whatever I need to fix or learn from. For instance I've found that it usually arises from some failure to communicate, and has the result of making that problem worse ... until I notice and change course.
> If you haven’t read the memo yourself, give it a read. Are you disagreeing, or are you offended?
Damore's memo made very flimsy scientific arguments, supported uncritically by a couple of studies at best, from a field which is currently undergoing a replication crisis, to make sweeping criticism of a policy widely regarded as beneficial. The disagreement is obvious. The offense is that he would, apparently in good faith, expect people to be convinced by such paltry evidence.
With the author's hunting example, the author has no evidence that 'offence comes first', or even that offence exists at all for the friend in question now that they're an adult.
With the Galileo example, there was no "pretence at disagreement". The church straight-up tried him for heresy. That's nothing to do with offense OR disagreement: it's the church maintaining its authority.
The reason the examples are so weak is because there is no strong dividing line between disagreement and offence. Trying to find one is to pretend people are rational beings when they're not. You can make a pretty good case for "what caused what" (disagreement) or for "self conception and identity" (offence) for each of these, and to attempt to shoehorn them into one or the other position is simply to argue for your own preferences -- but to do so from an imaginary position of scientific legitimacy.
As far as I can tell, the psychology stuff Damore quoted (big five), replicate just fine. What fail are the stuff that we want to be true, e.g. growth mindset.
Wasn’t Damore basically criticizing the premise behind affirmative action? It’s hardly widely regarded as beneficial. Its being rooted out of academia via the courts and the workplace is next.
I can get quite passionate in my discussions, but I don't take anything personally, and always welcome the opportunity for criticism. Though it is usually the ones who take offence who are the least able to criticize me.
One of the things I still have trouble not taking personally are insults. They're easier to take from kids, but from a grown adult who I consider a peer in at least some areas it's hard to brush off. [Funny enough, I have an easier time with it in person than with text.]
If you view someone insulting you as a child, it softens the impact. My main question here, though, is when do you stop doing that (if ever)?
If an adult is knowingly insulting me in front of peers/family and not fully joking, I can't imagine not taking that personally.
Whatever you do, including taking no action at all, is sending a message to your peers/family which they'll receive in varying ways. However much you care about them having an accurate perception of you, it's probably not zero for every last one-- so choosing a course of action and being able to explain it is not optional at that point. It is a personal problem that has been inflicted upon you.
That is true, I was only thinking about political or social discussions, not personal attacks. But I suppose its different if you're, say, living in the West Bank, and someone online is discussing how Israel's "right to exist" justifies their encroachment in a way that has personally affected your own livelihood--what is the difference there, between the personal insult and the broader political discourse?
Though there is definitely a distinction between those who are relatively secure in their lives, and who get "offended" if you question that security, and those who are endangered and fighting for their own livelihood involves these sorts of social discussions. But I don't think we can broadly categorize who is "endangered" and who isn't, because then there is the danger of those who are secure claiming insecurity on the basis of a classification alone, and using it to deflect such aformentioned criticism. Such categories are revealed through struggle, not before or outside of it.
The substantial point here is good, but I think it's poorly articulated and needs an overhaul.
> To disagree is to provide an observation that counters a specific claim.
> To get offended is to have a strong aversion to something.
Neither of these are true. Someone may use these words this way, but it simply isn't how we collectively normally use these words.
If you want to express a concept as a contrast, don't do so by twisting the meanings of existing words. It won't stick because it doesn't integrate with the rest of our language.
My progress began when I stopped putting up with some jerk professors in my department and decided to just do what I wanted to do. The moment I stopped justifying the way they were treating me I realized just what an unhealthy dynamic I had put up with. Maybe I needed to get seriously offended in order to completely be done with that.
The thing is, you were probably getting offended often but not identifying your emotion, so it comes out in other weird ways. By identifying what was going on internally that you were surpressing, you were able to escape the toxic patterns you were contributing to. When you get good at that you can just share the emotion rather than acting it out too, which results in really positive and effective conflict resolution
I noticed that there is a finite amount of certain emotions I can sustain.
I managed to trick myself into feeling sympathy ( e.g. for the victims ) in many cases people demand my anger, but I have not found a replacement for being offended.
> Seems to be a long way of saying to go get offended but not too offended.
Mmmh yeah, it's a little more than that. He suggest that being offended is OK, while taking unreasonable action because of said offense is not acceptable.
It's a tongue-in-cheek title. The author proposes something akin to cognitive behavioral therapy, to voluntarily seek out 'offending' situations to learn to behave in disagreement mode instead of offended mode.
The title is misleading. He really advocates for leaving your comfort zone.
That said, I would really love it if everybody could calm down and stop getting offended so much.
Realize that from the perspective of the other person, YOU are the one spewing obvious falsehoods and uttering offensive things. Everybody is the hero in their story.
Yes, some trolls are out to cause offense. You know what empowers and enables those people? Success. If anyone actually does get offended by their trollery.
I feel like the only way to show how strenuously I object to this article within the context of this article is to say how much it offends me, but that would be ceding terms to the article, and wildly untrue
I believe that taking offense is a choice, and one that we make far too often, and one that makes it easier to continue making the more one makes it. Decisions made of emotion are not decisions made, and "being offended" seems to me to inject emotion into an issue. That may or may not be okay, but it imo doesn't benefit analysis or discussion in a rational context.
- disagreeing and being offended aren't on the same level
- getting offended is a good thing, it shows you care deeply about an issue, you should do it more
- behaving like and ass***e because you're offended is not ok
For what it's worth, I'd interpret is as "disagreeing and being offended aren't the same" not that they aren't on the same level. I point that out, because I think that viewing them as on different levels could make the issue worse. It could basically mean that if someone wants their offense to be taken seriously, then they need to convince people that it's actually a disagreement.
I agree that offense is often used as an instrument to silence debate. We don't teach people to reason at school or university anymore. We don't instill the ethos of legitimate discussion, or even regard sophistry and attempts at vicious emotional manipulation as shameful. People don't even know what constituted a legitimate argument. The trivium made logic and rhetoric a foundation for all other learning and communication in this respect. Our "education" systems today neglect these horribly, producing "credentialed" savages who falsely believe they amount to something intellectually.
The author, however, confuses some concerns. First, I think that during debate, we simply must put aside matters of offense. We should focus exclusively on the matter at hand and offer counterarguments with substance. The only concern is whether some claim is true or false. That's it. Arguments should be considered apart from the real or imagined motives of the other party. A view may indeed be objectively offensive, whether we take offense or not, but while we can argue and show why something is wrong or gravely immoral, for example, there's nothing you can do with someone's taking of offense. What am I supposed to do with that? I can't argue with it, as it is merely their subjective reaction to a situation, not an argument I can respond to. It has no place in a debate. It has no relevance. It contributes nothing. It is often manipulative. If we are having a debate, and we don't always need to and we cannot always have one, we should either ignore such vacuous reactions, or remark that no reason for the offense was given. That's it. Don't feed the offense monster.
And as always, a debate per se is not a final arbiter of truth. A truth may be revealed, or someone may have the strongest available arguments, but let's avoid this juvenile YouTube attitude of "Watch this guy DESTROY this other guy!". It's stupid.
(Secondary remark as this annoys me whenever I read it:
"The heresy trial of Galileo. The 17th century astronomer wrote a note defending his view that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around. A shitstorm ensued, the Church got shutdown-offended, and Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest."
That's actually not how it happened. "The Church" wasn't offended. "The Church" is made up of billions (then millions) of people, and many clergy with diverse concerns and functions and roles and things they do. "The Church" doesn't care which sphere revolves around which other sphere as the Church. This is such a theologically uninteresting question, that making this claim is a pretty good litmus test for basic ignorance about the subject. The Church has never taught geocentrism or anything about astronomy. It has one mission: to lead souls to salvation. This entails moral leadership and authority, but astronomy trivia like this has no moral import here. It is not a matter of doctrine and it would be a preposterous thing to make a matter of doctrine. Those who make a big deal out of the common language about the sun rising or setting in the Bible need to ask themselves why they themselves continue to use that language in everyday life having accepted heliocentrism. Geocentrism simply was, at the time, merely the common and accepted view, one held by most academics (Copernicus feared them, not the Church, when publishing his magnum opus), not a teaching of the Church. The reason Galileo was put under house arrest, overlooking the Vatican garden (a rather gentle punishment for the time), was political. The Galileo "affair" spanned decades and had much to do with Galileo's tendency to insult and badger his patrons and those in power. He had a foolish knack for pointlessly making powerful enemies, including those who were once his friends. If anything, anything to do with geocentrism was a pretext on the part of his enemies to attack him. That's it. I know the Galileo "affair" has become a founding myth of scientism, but it's false. Don't get offended at that, have the courage to face the boring truth of it.)
Author here, thanks for writing this thoughtful comment.
1. I agree, during debate, put the offense monster to the side.
2. In an effort to spare words, I compressed the Galileo story into something that missed important details. My bad. My understanding of the saga was that many members of the Church did engage with good faith in the emerging science of the time. What happened was mostly a political spat (though I still think there was an element of "offense" involved).
"The Dread" is a good north star for discovering what to improve next, since most Dreads are somewhat common/shared among peers, communities and colleagues. Being able to do something nobody likes to do is a good edge against the world.