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

31–40 of 93 posts

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

#31

Post by 0815test »

everdrive wrote: post #17
0815test wrote: post #9

> Humans require social touch, but the rules that govern its deployment are not biologically determined... On the contrary; social touch, with the ensuing spectrum between "discomfort/aggression/dominance" and "affiliation/friendship/social comfort" is actually found in all social mammals, it has nothing to do with society, gender, sexual undertones or anything human-specific like that! Even domesticated cats http://…

You're helping to create a very cold world. I've heard the term neopuritan thrown around in this context, and the more I think about it the more it fits. The modern obsession with harshly judging the body language, physical touch, and emotion of individuals today feels like a technology-enabled Scarlet Letter. People's preferences aren't immediately self-evident to all observers, and intent does matter.

"Coldness", formality and due process are actually the best defense when dealing with someone who is in an obvious position of power. I'm not sure why people are pretending that Joe Biden is just an average guy who has gotten a little too comfy with some social acquaintance of his (the scenario that one might have a "cold" overreaction to). I do wonder what would happen if we were talking about Mike Pence doing the same things. Would the Washington Post be saying the same things about the inherent necessity of touch?

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

#32

Post by _Microft »

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 boundaries violated, (s)he could defend themselves (in a social way, if things need physical defense, then things went awry already long before) and on the other hand the active partner in an interaction could act more freely, knowing that the passive party would object if he or she did something that the other one does not like.

I like the idea.

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

#33

Post by Veen »

maxerickson wrote: post #15
sethammons wrote: post #5

Feels like a slippery slope. Someone will always feel uncomfortable with something.

The slippery slope towards consent? I think not touching strangers isn't really gonna pinch anyone's lifestyle real hard.

Many things make some people uncomfortable: touching, making eye contact, being spoken to by strangers, being spoken to in a raised voice, being in the presence of a person dressed in a way that might be considered sexually provacative, or of a member of the opposite sex, or of someone who signals particular religious or political affiliations, and so on.

Which of these are we to gain consent for in advance? No one is hurt by a casual touch to the hand or arm, any more than they are hurt by direct eye contact. But it can make some people just as uncomfortable.

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

#34

Post by sqldba »

pacala wrote: post #10
josh_fyi wrote: post #3

It's not just the potential sexual threat that generates discomfort. A friendly pat on the shoulder can also be interpreted as a dominance display.

The cat is out of the bag, can we please let this piece of poppsych die? A surprisingly large number of manager wannabe type at a FAANG company made a point to try to pat me on the back in public. Please stop trying to symbolically stomp on people you'd like on your team, it's demeaning. Especially for yourself.

I know you’re being downvoted but I know EXACTLY what you mean. Hang in there.

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

#35

Post by dls2016 »

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…

When was the last time someone sniffed your hair or you saw someone’s hair sniffed in a professional situation?

My own professional career spans military, academia and multi-national corporations and therefore dozens of hours of dumb videos showing cringy behavior like Biden. These articles completely miss the point that he’s at least 20 years out of date of what’s considered acceptable (and some of his weird actions were never welcome, despite being acceptable norms).

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

#36

Post by CJefferson »

apacheCamel wrote: post #25
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

Would you be able to give other examples of this obsession with rules? From this, and this alone, I'd like to imagine that people just want to clear up the unknown. Social interactions are almost always different from one person to the next. Social norms do tend to keep things pretty similar but the whole range can vary wildly. Maybe this is just a way to narrow the range? I don't think it is a great way to handle th…

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.

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

#37

Post by blfr »

apacheCamel wrote: post #25
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

Would you be able to give other examples of this obsession with rules? From this, and this alone, I'd like to imagine that people just want to clear up the unknown. Social interactions are almost always different from one person to the next. Social norms do tend to keep things pretty similar but the whole range can vary wildly. Maybe this is just a way to narrow the range? I don't think it is a great way to handle th…

Codes of conduct.

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

#38

Post by maxerickson »

Veen wrote: post #33
maxerickson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slippery slope towards consent? I think not touching strangers isn't really gonna pinch anyone's lifestyle real hard.

Many things make some people uncomfortable: touching, making eye contact, being spoken to by strangers, being spoken to in a raised voice, being in the presence of a person dressed in a way that might be considered sexually provacative, or of a member of the opposite sex, or of someone who signals particular religious or political affiliations, and so on. Which of these are we to gain consent for in advance? No one i…

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.

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

#39

Post by mc32 »

dls2016 wrote: post #35
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…

When was the last time someone sniffed your hair or you saw someone’s hair sniffed in a professional situation? My own professional career spans military, academia and multi-national corporations and therefore dozens of hours of dumb videos showing cringy behavior like Biden. These articles completely miss the point that he’s at least 20 years out of date of what’s considered acceptable (and some of his weird actions…

Hair sniffing is quite different from hugging or touching. We’re talking about “codifying” how people interact normally, hugging, touching, tapping.

Smelling, I think is outside the norm and most people would agree it’s unwelcome behavior.

It’s like asking, is touching someone’s axillas appropriate? Of course outside medical examinations probably not.

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

#40

Post by Veen »

maxerickson wrote: post #38
Veen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many things make some people uncomfortable: touching, making eye contact, being spoken to by strangers, being spoken to in a raised voice, being in the presence of a person dressed in a way that might be considered sexually provacative, or of a member of the opposite sex, or of someone who signals particular religious or political affiliations, and so on. Which of these are we to gain consent for in advance? No one i…

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.

Post reply on HN