Ahem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/faq-googles-new-privacy-policy/2012/01/24/gIQArw8GOQ_story.html
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
On friendships, balance theory, transitivity, and the art of being loved.
One of my least favorite things is interpersonal politics. In the past few months I have been introduced to a wide variety of people who make and maintain relationships on an us-versus-them basis. There is a tacit support economy going on in these interactions -- if you diss my ex for me, I will diss your ex for you. If you come to my party, I will stop interacting with someone you dislike. If you vote for me, I will be friendly behind your back as well as to your face. Now that I am paying attention, I think that that is how 95% of people work.
It leaves me at once horrified and worried for my future. I don't have the time or inclination to invest in intentionally building up a network of people who will diss on the people I dislike and support the people I like, in exchange for me following their lead on who they like and dislike. And I am not interested in having the sort of person who would be that petty as a close confidante or friend. But I've realized recently, since I don't play along, I tend to end up alone, frozen out, and gossiped about when people who do play these games try to collect me.
Apparently I am going against human nature in my life-and-let-live desire that everyone interact with those they like and hold their tongues about those they dislike (well, actually, I guess the vegetarian thing isn't all that natural either). At least, "give up already, Master!" is what balance theory tells me. Balance theory says that any affective triangle between things must be balanced, that is, have a positive sign. In other words, the following situations are stable:
And these situations are unstable:
In the unstable situations, as long as the third thing or individual is salient enough, it causes cognitive dissonance. The individuals in question, subconsciously or consciously, endeavor to resolve the situation, through:
This is why breakups and non-secret elections ruin friendships. It is also is why I'm no longer close with someone who had been seriously crushing on me, and why she is still endeavoring to become close with anyone I show any interest in making friends with.
It also works in a kind of tension with another finding from network analysis -- standing between two other people who don't interact themselves puts you in a strong position. Then you can govern when and how those individuals interact, and much of the information that they have regarding the other one. On the other side, to avoid being caught as one of the ends of the triangle, it is best to try to complete the relationship and make friends with the other triangle leg. Completing the triangle decreases the likelihood that you'll end up frozen out, derided, or gossiped about.
This phenomenon is one of the reasons many people don't share their friends until they have to. (It is also tied closely to management promotions: managers get promoted who are particularly talented at maintaining their central position by keeping people away from each other.)
The new thing for me in all this is the idea that some people intentionally seek out and foster relationships on the basis of these ideas, just to have people who support them and won't backstab or gossip about them. Until a few months ago, I had thought all these phenomena were naturally occurring and never intentionally manipulative. But no. Some people -- I would even say "a lot of people", especially those who are charming, functionally extroverted, and have high EQ -- make friends with people so that those same people won't be their enemies, and they work to make friends with a wide variety of people so that they themselves are always in that central position. They manipulate situations so that they come out safe.
Me? I am blown away. And I still can't decide whether I want to devote the amount of time to playing this friendship game that I would need to play it well, or whether I even want the sort of friendships that come out of treating other people like pawns in pursuit of feeling safe and good about myself. But it isn't as if choosing not to play is safe, either -- not playing leaves me an army of one, surrounded on all sides by alliances snubbed by me daring to like and dislike individuals as I please.
It leaves me at once horrified and worried for my future. I don't have the time or inclination to invest in intentionally building up a network of people who will diss on the people I dislike and support the people I like, in exchange for me following their lead on who they like and dislike. And I am not interested in having the sort of person who would be that petty as a close confidante or friend. But I've realized recently, since I don't play along, I tend to end up alone, frozen out, and gossiped about when people who do play these games try to collect me.
Apparently I am going against human nature in my life-and-let-live desire that everyone interact with those they like and hold their tongues about those they dislike (well, actually, I guess the vegetarian thing isn't all that natural either). At least, "give up already, Master!" is what balance theory tells me. Balance theory says that any affective triangle between things must be balanced, that is, have a positive sign. In other words, the following situations are stable:
- Two people are friends. They both like the third thing or individual.
- Two people are enemies. One likes the third thing or individual, and the other dislikes it.
And these situations are unstable:- Two people are friends. One likes the third thing or individual, and the other dislikes it.
- Two people are enemies. They both like the third thing or individual.
In the unstable situations, as long as the third thing or individual is salient enough, it causes cognitive dissonance. The individuals in question, subconsciously or consciously, endeavor to resolve the situation, through:- Switching their friendship status,
- Switching what they like and dislike, or
- Rendering that third thing or individual no longer salient.
This is why breakups and non-secret elections ruin friendships. It is also is why I'm no longer close with someone who had been seriously crushing on me, and why she is still endeavoring to become close with anyone I show any interest in making friends with.
It also works in a kind of tension with another finding from network analysis -- standing between two other people who don't interact themselves puts you in a strong position. Then you can govern when and how those individuals interact, and much of the information that they have regarding the other one. On the other side, to avoid being caught as one of the ends of the triangle, it is best to try to complete the relationship and make friends with the other triangle leg. Completing the triangle decreases the likelihood that you'll end up frozen out, derided, or gossiped about.
This phenomenon is one of the reasons many people don't share their friends until they have to. (It is also tied closely to management promotions: managers get promoted who are particularly talented at maintaining their central position by keeping people away from each other.)The new thing for me in all this is the idea that some people intentionally seek out and foster relationships on the basis of these ideas, just to have people who support them and won't backstab or gossip about them. Until a few months ago, I had thought all these phenomena were naturally occurring and never intentionally manipulative. But no. Some people -- I would even say "a lot of people", especially those who are charming, functionally extroverted, and have high EQ -- make friends with people so that those same people won't be their enemies, and they work to make friends with a wide variety of people so that they themselves are always in that central position. They manipulate situations so that they come out safe.
Me? I am blown away. And I still can't decide whether I want to devote the amount of time to playing this friendship game that I would need to play it well, or whether I even want the sort of friendships that come out of treating other people like pawns in pursuit of feeling safe and good about myself. But it isn't as if choosing not to play is safe, either -- not playing leaves me an army of one, surrounded on all sides by alliances snubbed by me daring to like and dislike individuals as I please.
yuppies
My media consumption is down. So is my outrage level. It's rather nice, actually.
Sometimes, though, I still interact with low self-worth people who are trying, desperately, to live up to an image they will never succeed at. You know the sort. Bleached blonde or highlighted. Straightened medium-long hair. Made-up. Trendy dress. (Bonus points if the dress is from a thrift store.) Punctuates written sentences with the letters "lol". Uses the word "like" every three or four words. Also tries hard to use SAT words like "atrocious", "perambulate", and "indubitable", but somehow only manages to use the first one of that set correctly. Needs a boyfriend (1) to justify her own worth, and (2) to prove she is living the American dream. Wants marriage from such a boyfriend, but while single, professes men don't matter except as a good lay. Repeatedly (desperately) credentials herself in terms of where she's lived abroad, what organizations she's worked for, which schools she attended, and/or who her parents are (and/or where her parents have lived, organizations they have worked for, or schools they attended), selectively choosing only to name-drop the ones that the outside world judges as impressive (like the UK and Harvard). Reads newspapers not because of interest in them, but because she should have opinions. Wants to appear as smart as she thinks she is (which is significantly higher than how smart she actually is). Pretends to know things she doesn't know -- or perhaps worse, believes she knows things she doesn't know. Almost always is past the hump of her family's trajectory in fame, fortune, and class -- her parents were above average and achieved great things; they have expectations of the same for their children; but they somehow missed the lesson about regression to the mean (or believe they are extraordinary enough that it does not apply to them and their offspring). In other circumstances, their child would be a drug addict teen mother. In these circumstances, she is just desperate to fit in, and desperate to prove to everyone and most of all, herself, that she isn't as average as she knows, deep down, she is.
I'm always faced with such a turmoil of emotions for such poseurs who are posing even for themselves. Annoyance? Sadness? Pity? Derision? May you be able to find yourself in the new year, sweetums.
Sometimes, though, I still interact with low self-worth people who are trying, desperately, to live up to an image they will never succeed at. You know the sort. Bleached blonde or highlighted. Straightened medium-long hair. Made-up. Trendy dress. (Bonus points if the dress is from a thrift store.) Punctuates written sentences with the letters "lol". Uses the word "like" every three or four words. Also tries hard to use SAT words like "atrocious", "perambulate", and "indubitable", but somehow only manages to use the first one of that set correctly. Needs a boyfriend (1) to justify her own worth, and (2) to prove she is living the American dream. Wants marriage from such a boyfriend, but while single, professes men don't matter except as a good lay. Repeatedly (desperately) credentials herself in terms of where she's lived abroad, what organizations she's worked for, which schools she attended, and/or who her parents are (and/or where her parents have lived, organizations they have worked for, or schools they attended), selectively choosing only to name-drop the ones that the outside world judges as impressive (like the UK and Harvard). Reads newspapers not because of interest in them, but because she should have opinions. Wants to appear as smart as she thinks she is (which is significantly higher than how smart she actually is). Pretends to know things she doesn't know -- or perhaps worse, believes she knows things she doesn't know. Almost always is past the hump of her family's trajectory in fame, fortune, and class -- her parents were above average and achieved great things; they have expectations of the same for their children; but they somehow missed the lesson about regression to the mean (or believe they are extraordinary enough that it does not apply to them and their offspring). In other circumstances, their child would be a drug addict teen mother. In these circumstances, she is just desperate to fit in, and desperate to prove to everyone and most of all, herself, that she isn't as average as she knows, deep down, she is.
I'm always faced with such a turmoil of emotions for such poseurs who are posing even for themselves. Annoyance? Sadness? Pity? Derision? May you be able to find yourself in the new year, sweetums.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
nothing profound here
I didn't even realize the shift until the radio announcers were providing information about school closings by reading lists aloud for seconds on end: my, how times have changed.
[Edit much later to clarify my navel-gazing: Since the advent of the internet, apparently there is no need to read school closings aloud on the radio. There is also no need to skim them across the bottom of the local TV channel. Only when the internet cannot be relied on (because the power is out) does that old standby of youth in the second half of the 20th century reappear. And there I was, never even noticing that it was gone.]
[Edit much later to clarify my navel-gazing: Since the advent of the internet, apparently there is no need to read school closings aloud on the radio. There is also no need to skim them across the bottom of the local TV channel. Only when the internet cannot be relied on (because the power is out) does that old standby of youth in the second half of the 20th century reappear. And there I was, never even noticing that it was gone.]
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
query?
So about half a dozen times in the course of literally only days, someone has said the word "query" in my presence. Always -- always -- pronounced "quairy." But me, I pronounce it queery. And this weird pronunciation has seriously thrown me for a loop. I've always pronounced it queery. Everyone I know has always pronounced it queery. I look it up in dictionary and that says it's pronounced queery, and the recording reiterates that. So... where is this strange new quairy pronunciation coming from? Have I actually been missing it all these years? Or (obviously my favorite explanation, but totally unsupported by any data at my disposal), is there a vast conspiracy to avoid any vestige of queerness when speaking?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sucker Punch - the reaction take!
Sucker punch. No plot. Three plots. Same time. Realllllly obvious movie tricks/foreshadowing etc. 13 year old boy's wet dream. Hot women hurting, sex slaves, and in Japanese-style anime fighting. Little clothes. Of the five girls we get to watch 4 of them die. There is of course a near-rape scene. Women have ZERO agency. Zero. A magic old white man tells them how to escape from evil prison/women's mental illness ward/brothel (the equality is supposed to be Deep). Once they do, at the very end, magic old white man comes back and saves the escaping girl from the police (still NO AGENCY). Also, did I say yet - NO PLOT. Just three distinct dream sequences interrelated by Meaningful Objects with Meaningful Camera Work. There is a hot intense girl-relationship (femslash like whoa....moar manjism) .... but they are sisters (moar forbidden manjism pr0n). Also the dykier of the two dies (trope much?). At the end of film the central character dies in total triteness to save her friend - the central character was the "missing piece" Meaningful Object that no one could identify before during the Mystical Quest. Written by 13 year old, fake twists and all. Fucking *horrible* gouge my eyes out. **Nothing** redeeming...
Monday, March 21, 2011
College & Same-Sex Experimentation
The New York Times has a short article exploring a finding that more educated women are less likely to have had lesbian experiences:
On the other hand, this comment is love:
(1) What the fuck? An extra 5% of women start having sex with women because they are .... incredibly horny but lack the men they'd otherwise prefer? Whatever, dude. My bet is that there is some licensing going on in the lower socioeconomic status groups, and/or extra stifling in the higher ones.
(2) Dunno why this line is even in the article, but in any event, the discussion is about lesbians and women with lesbian experiences. So fuck that harkening back to "hetero" shit. It rubs me the wrong way.
But according to the new study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 13,500 responses, almost 10 percent of women ages 22 to 44 with a bachelor’s degree said they had had a same-sex experience, compared with 15 percent of those with no high school diploma. Women with a high school diploma or some college, but no degree, fell in between.Fascinating, right? And the article has a wide variety of comments on why this may have been the result. Among them are people who say bullshit like this:
the new findings may reflect class dynamics, with high school dropouts living in surroundings with few desirable and available male partners.(1)And this:
A lot of data shows that women's sexuality is more hetero-flexible, more influenced by what they see around them.(2)I have an urge to call those oh-so-wise professors up and ask if they had a clue what they were saying....
On the other hand, this comment is love:
the results of the federal survey underscored how poor, minority and working-class lesbians had been overshadowed by the mainstream cultural image of lesbians as white professionals.I just wish that comment weren't so buried in the article. *pulls out highlighter* <3
* * *
(1) What the fuck? An extra 5% of women start having sex with women because they are .... incredibly horny but lack the men they'd otherwise prefer? Whatever, dude. My bet is that there is some licensing going on in the lower socioeconomic status groups, and/or extra stifling in the higher ones.
(2) Dunno why this line is even in the article, but in any event, the discussion is about lesbians and women with lesbian experiences. So fuck that harkening back to "hetero" shit. It rubs me the wrong way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)