Where Did the Fear of Poisoned Halloween Candy Come From? (2013)

Post by baddox » Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 8:58 PM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #65

baddox wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does anyone oppose reasonable rules for time-of-day-based noise levels in an apartment or neighborhood? It really doesn’t matter if your permanent neighbors or transient guests are the ones making the noise, either should cause the property owner/renter to get fined/evicted.

> But does anyone oppose reasonable rules for time-of-day-based noise levels in an apartment or neighborhood? Even if this were a viable solution, it does nothing for the lost sleep during the months (or in may case, full year) it takes to establish these rules and get them consistently enforced. Also, it's not a viable solution. There are a couple huge problems. First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, nei…

> Even if this were a viable solution, it does nothing for the lost sleep during the months (or in may case, full year) it takes to establish these rules and get them consistently enforced.

I don't understand that argument. It might make months to establish a ban or effective enforcement of temporary tenants as well. Obviously that sucks, but I'm just trying to think about which rule would be more effective and reasonable.

> First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, neither is evicting renters. In fact, neither is fining owners/renters for sums of money that would actually cause a change in behavior. These are all very expensive options of last resort that are likely to end in lawyer fees.

Again, I don't understand. Those are the exact same options we have to disincentivize owners/renters taking in temporary tenants. What alternative enforcement mechanism are you suggesting?

It seems like you're focusing on the difficulties in enforcing my suggestion without recognizing that literally the exact same difficulties exist in enforcing your suggestion.

Post by jaredhansen » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #69

throwaway413 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it lying? They are acknowledging the emotional trigger of the situation without agreeing that it is rational. Sounds to me like exactly how one should approach a disagreement of irrational nature. Would you mind suggesting an alternative opener, that would also work, that isn’t “slimy”?

It’s explicitly deliberately choosing your words to manipulate the other person, even if technically you’re not saying anything untrue. Perhaps “deceptive” is a better description than “lying.”

It's not deceptive at all -- and if it makes you feel better, it still works if you explicitly declare (preferably at a different time so as not to exacerbate their emotionally-triggered state) that you plan to use this technique.

You aren't saying "you're right to feel this way given the state of the world." You are saying "you're right to feel this way, given your specific priors." (And then, now that you are On Their Side, you go on to help them reevaluate the priors.)

The natural instinct for many of us is to start by disproving the other person's priors in order to demonstrate that their anxiety is unnecessary in hopes of reducing it. What I'm saying is that if you start by validating the emotional experience given their priors, you give their brain the space to back off from its fight-or-flight state and get into a position where it's capable of listening to your rational argument about why the alleged risk is likely overblown.

You don't have to sacrifice any truth value in doing this (instead of saying: "you're wrong to feel this way because your assumption is wrong", you are effectively saying "you are right to feel this way given your assumptions ... but btw, have you taken a hard look at those assumptions lately? Let's do that."). You're also framing it in a much more collaborative way - not "you are wrong and I will prove it and WIN", but "look our mutual goal is figuring out what Reality looks like, so let me stand over here with you and let's look at it together and try to figure out what we can see."

I'm making this point again because I myself struggled for years with this concept. I care about truth; honesty is important, etc. But if your goal is to get more people to see Reality As It Is, consider a strategy that starts by getting their mind into a more rational state, rather than assuming that state already exists.

Re: Where Did the Fear of Poisoned Halloween Candy Come From? (2013)

Re: Where Did the Fear of Poisoned Halloween Candy Come From? (2013)