Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#71

Post by lmorchard »

Veen wrote: post #40
maxerickson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how you go on and on as if I hadn't written two paragraphs to begin with. I point out the costs of not touching being minimal exactly because I anticipated a tiresome argument whinging about all the other things we won't be able to do anymore.

The costs of avoiding direct eye contact are minimal. The cost of not wearing a crucifix are minimal. There are social benefits to touching, and most people are fine with casual touching. You have failed to demonstrate why touch is a special case. You can refer to my argument as whinging or tiresome if you like, but it that doesn't change its validity.

> most people are fine with casual touching

That's a nice assumption. Are you sure about that? Have you asked most people?

You might find that there are a lot of people who don't actually like it, but who find the consequences of making a fuss about it even worse.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#72

Post by manicdee »

jfk13 wrote: post #23
0815test wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually a matter of personal freedom to have such rules. Joe Biden's-- or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist should end at my nose, and this should be made clear and unambiguous to everyone's benefit. License and anarchy are the opposite of genuine, actual freedom.

I think you'll find we already have rules that restrict Joe Biden's freedom to punch you on the nose. On the other hand, we don't have rules that say I must ask for your explicit consent before putting out my hand to shake yours when we meet. Somewhere in between, there are gray areas. The question is whether one vocal minority should be allowed to define where the lines are drawn, and insist the rest of society adju…

How come the rules that restrict Joe Biden’s freedom to touch other people shouldn’t apply to you?

There don’t need to be rules about shaking hands or high giving because those are mutually consensual actions.

Fist bumping a non-receptive individual (aka punching a colleague on the shoulder) is not consensual.

For the “vocal minority” which is most women and some men, non-consensual touching is associated with bullying, intimidation, physical coercion and assault. In the workplace we try to avoid emotional arousal because people shouting angrily at each other makes it difficult for others to focus on their work.

In social settings, you are free to explore boundaries as long as you are aware that failure to take non-vocal hints can lead to being ostracised from those social circles.

But yes, the “vocal minority” should be allowed to define the lines, which are pretty simple even for people who have never had to follow etiquette: other people’s bodies are off limits to you unless they indicate otherwise.

By all means go for the high five, but accept that if it is not returned you don’t try forcing it to happen. You have now divined where one boundary existed at one point in time.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#73

Post by manicdee »

mc32 wrote: post #13

I hate saying this, but people who take advantage of norms is why we can’t have nice things. In this case nice things is social interaction that’re natural which don’t require a “contract” (I.e. I’m thinking of hugging you, may I hug you?). It’s so big brother-like. It’s a bit opposite of being social. It becomes more like a mechanical contract and lawyerly. This is not a path I wish to go down. Some people are over…

The important thing is that when Jacinta Adern puts her hand out for a handshake, you don’t Scott Morrison your way in for a hug.

Pay attention to the cues, be prepared for non-vocal cues that your physical behaviour is unwelcome in this context, and accept that your “norms” aren’t shared with everyone outside your immediate family, and even then there are caveats.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#74

Post by manicdee »

Veen wrote: post #40
maxerickson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how you go on and on as if I hadn't written two paragraphs to begin with. I point out the costs of not touching being minimal exactly because I anticipated a tiresome argument whinging about all the other things we won't be able to do anymore.

The costs of avoiding direct eye contact are minimal. The cost of not wearing a crucifix are minimal. There are social benefits to touching, and most people are fine with casual touching. You have failed to demonstrate why touch is a special case. You can refer to my argument as whinging or tiresome if you like, but it that doesn't change its validity.

There are benefits to touching in social environments, agreed.

The workplace is not a social environment. It brings together people who otherwise would never have shared the same space, so you need to be super cautious about establishing new relationships.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#75

Post by manicdee »

sethammons wrote: post #68
ksaj wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread goes on indefinitely because of the lack of one word: context. You think of that little old lady one way. But if she was Queen Elizabeth, you would perceive something completely different in terms of power dynamics.

While I've yet to have Queen Elizabeth or some other high ranking official have some physical contact with me, pretty sure my first reaction would not to be thinking bout oppression.

Probably because you have always been the oppressor.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#76

Post by nkkollaw »

lmorchard wrote: post #69
nkkollaw wrote: post #18

Some people are uncomfortable with non-touchers. Can't people regulate basic social interactions without the government stepping in, anymore? If you're uncomfortable with a pat on your shoulder, just tell the person.

> just tell the person Sure, that always works fine. They won't take offense or make it a thing or blow it up and make everything awkward from then after. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. It's usually easier to just eat the discomfort and not make a fuss. But, it would be nicer to not get touched by randos in the first place.

That's ridiculous.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#77

Post by _Microft »

lmorchard wrote: post #70
_Microft wrote: post #32

I think the best thing we could do to solve a whole lot of problems at once is assertiveness training for pupils, for example. Teach young people how to communicate what they perceive as their boundaries and that violations of these boundaries will have consequences. I would expect that a lot of things will get better. It would be a win for both active and passive parties in every interaction. If someone finds their…

Or, maybe, what if people kept their hands to themselves so that others didn't need to be on assertive defense against touchy grabby hands? If you know for sure someone welcomes contact from you, then sure go ahead. Otherwise, you're asking double from the person whose boundaries were violated: First, the discomfort of the unsolicited contact. Then, second, the discomfort of causing a scene to assert their boundaries…

There is a misunderstanding what assertiveness means. It is not just about defense against touchy grabby hands, it is meant to help people in every situation where a violation of their boundaries can happen, i.e. in every social interaction.

Examples could be a relative that criticizes your physique (e.g. a comment of the belly someone developed over the christmas holidays), mansplaining or a repeatedly interrupting colleague. Any sort of interaction bears the risk of violating someones boundaries (that one does not know because how could one if they didn't communicate them [0]). Assertiveness means that someone both knows where their own boundaries are, so that they actually can tell when they are violated and additionally that they have the skills to deal with it. This can be as easy as challenging the other with a "Oh? Do you think so?", making clear that there is something one does not agree with and that this is a topic the other would not have an easy time to pursue further. Assertiveness is not about making a scene, it is about clearly communicating that there is a topic that will lead to conflict if pursued further.

Basically it is a tool to make people stronger and more confident so that they do not become victims of other people's transgressions as easily.

[0] This does not mean that people shouldn't be somewhat considerate but being overly considerate is nothing more than social self-censorship. Others have to accept your personality as much as you have to accept theirs. It's an interplay.

Edit: This nice line is from Wikipedia: Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#78

Post by CJefferson »

benj111 wrote: post #45
CJefferson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with setting social rules, is they always seem to line up exactly with what the currently dominant group defines "normal", in my experience. The worst advice I was given as a child was "treat others as you wish to be treated", because it is awful advice when moving in to a significantly different set of people.

"treat others as you wish to be treated" It's a useful minimum surely? How else should you treat a significantly different set of people? Yes once you get to know them, you learn how they want to be treated (mainly?) based on how they treat you and others. Are you talking about using general formal politeness?

The problem is it sounds seductive, but fails when your rules of pilteness don't line up with other people's.

For example, I hate being asked questions multiple times. Therefore when i went to ubiversity, if I asked someone is they wanted me to buy a round, and they said no, I would not accept the answer. After some months I discovered I was considered tight, as the first offer is always refused, so "doesn't count".

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#79

Post by CJefferson »

apacheCamel wrote: post #50
CJefferson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with setting social rules, is they always seem to line up exactly with what the currently dominant group defines "normal", in my experience. The worst advice I was given as a child was "treat others as you wish to be treated", because it is awful advice when moving in to a significantly different set of people.

I believe "treat others as you wish to be treated" should be taken from a much higher approach than "if you like to be hugged, hug others". I've always seen it as more of "respect others and they will respect you." I still think it can apply to this situation though. Instead of setting social rules, we should show respect for the people we are interacting with.

I think that's trying too hard to read something better into a bad saying :) going straight to your suggested "respect others and they will respect you." seems like a better lesson.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#80

Post by benj111 »

CJefferson wrote: post #78
benj111 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"treat others as you wish to be treated" It's a useful minimum surely? How else should you treat a significantly different set of people? Yes once you get to know them, you learn how they want to be treated (mainly?) based on how they treat you and others. Are you talking about using general formal politeness?

The problem is it sounds seductive, but fails when your rules of pilteness don't line up with other people's. For example, I hate being asked questions multiple times. Therefore when i went to ubiversity, if I asked someone is they wanted me to buy a round, and they said no, I would not accept the answer. After some months I discovered I was considered tight, as the first offer is always refused, so "doesn't count".

Right, but 'first contact' situations generally call for both sides to be forgiving of the other side.

Theres plenty of time over the ensuing months to communicate your preferences.

FWIW I wouldn't say theres a particular rule requiring offering to buy a round multiple times, so I'd have have been viewed as tight also, even if I was trying to fit in with normal convention.

Post reply on HN