Live data from Hacker News

A Theory of Jerks (2014)

aeon.co

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#41
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but actually a masculine avatar is fine here. The whole thing would have worked just as well if, instead of "sweetheart", he'd used the term "nice-guy" as in the claim "nice-guys finish last."

feminists have totally discredited nice guy though, turning it into a passive-aggressive hanger on who hopes to get rewarded with sex from being nice.

I've seen that image of “nice guy” far more from MRA, PUA, and other anti-democratic than from feminists, despite having a lot more interaction with the latter.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#42
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people think singular "they" is OK in writing. Try: the waiter messed up because he's a jerk.

"They" is generally accepted as a singular gender neutral pronoun.

And has been since the Canterbury Tales! It's a modern development that it isn't considered "correct" English.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#43
post #34
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the waiter messed up because they're a jerk That's a subordinate clause where "jerk" is referring to the waiter, not the main subject, hence it's not circular.

And people think singular "they" is OK in writing. Try: the waiter messed up because he's a jerk.

That's not a unique problem of they:

"The man shoved the waiter because he was in his way."

Pronouns only have a few bits of information, everything else has to be inferred from context. (A big problem in natural language processing.)

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#44
post #25
post #23

I don't agree that jerks are people who don't care about other people's individual circumstances. Jerks are people who think that everyone else is a jerk, which is how they excuse their behaviour. It's not that they don't care why the waiter messed up their order, it's that they think the waiter messed up because they're a jerk.

Sounds like a narrow application of the fundamental attribution bias. Not sure that explains everything, but I'd bet it plays a big part.

When my wife was teaching preschool, she said the kids who caused the most trouble also felt that many things other people were doing things deliberately to upset them. It was kind of a reverse of Hanlon's Razor.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#45
post #15

One interesting quip I've heard from a psychologist recently, is that communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy. (I think it can work across.) I see a lot of the outrage driven viral media of today as being "punching down" by aspirant upper-echelon socioeconomic people onto lower-echelon people. Also, if communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy, doesn't thi…

It's known that "communication can only happen between equals." Otherwise it's order giving no matter the semantics.

I don't mean to sound too crass, but maybe you should keep calm and hit the pub for a pint, read some literature... something.

"It's known" sounds a little final.

In a more level tone: there are venues for equalizing communication, because of course in society there are hierarchies that we've struggled with for ages. The charge for any individual is being willing to expose themselves to those environments and being willing to engross themselves in the mess of what that kind of interaction can turn up.

Then again, I kind of side with Bohm about the connectedness of people, and yet...

I raise you Bohm on communication problems:

>If each one of us can give full attention to what is actually ‘blocking’ communication while he is also attending properly to the content of what is communicated, then we may be able to create something new between us, something of very great significance for bringing to an end the at present insoluble problems of the individual and of society.

Scratch all the drunk talk that follows and I also raise you this:

http://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/17/archives/the-irish-pub-is-...

There traditionally (in some cultures, anyway) venues where people from various social hierarchies were equals when they passed the threshold, and communication is then wide open. They still exist -- but if you're North American don't count on finding them on the strip.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#46
post #34
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the waiter messed up because they're a jerk That's a subordinate clause where "jerk" is referring to the waiter, not the main subject, hence it's not circular.

And people think singular "they" is OK in writing. Try: the waiter messed up because he's a jerk.

This doesn't do anything at all to resolve the ambiguity in this sentence.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#47
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jerk has been synonymous with "rude person" as long as I've been alive. If there was a shift, it wasn't all that recent.

Steve Martin's movie "The Jerk" is the older usage, and it's dated to 1979.

But wasn't he a bumpkin that turned into an asshole once he struck it rich?

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#48

This is the heart of the professor's theory: the jerk culpably fails to appreciate the perspectives of others around him, treating them as tools to be manipulated or idiots to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers. so, a sociopath? is this theory really new or interesting?

The guy's just trying to be helpful. Think about it from his perspective.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#49
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's known that "communication can only happen between equals." Otherwise it's order giving no matter the semantics.

Could you expand on the "it's known" part? Any research? This sounds as a very general statement. Social hierarchies can be dynamic.

He is a Dothraki.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#50
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

feminists have totally discredited nice guy though, turning it into a passive-aggressive hanger on who hopes to get rewarded with sex from being nice.

I've seen that image of “nice guy” far more from MRA, PUA, and other anti-democratic than from feminists, despite having a lot more interaction with the latter.

Missed the edit window, but “anti-democratic” should be “anti-feminist”.

Stupid “smart” auto-correct on the phone keyboard...

Post reply on HN