I think in some significant subset of such situations, almost everyone present is aware of the problem, so you don't always have to describe the problem yourself or explicitly propose solutions (which can seem weird from a power dynamics perspective). Sometimes just drawing the group's attention to the meta level at all, initiating a meta-discussion, is sufficient to allow the group to fix the problem.
I think the problem is that you're clinging to being 100% truthful and precise which is making you think you need to instantiate a meta-conversation when you really don't. In scenario 5, you can just start talking to the person next to you about a different topic, "Oh hey did you see X, what's up with that?" If they start chatting with you then you can pretty clearly tell they don't want to listen to the chatty girl either. The fact that you two are having a conversation also signals to the chatty girl and other people around that you both are less interested in what she has to say. You guys can then keep talking near them, move away, etc. Other friends may follow you or join your conversation and it doesn't matter if that girl was the chattiest of chatty people. She'll be left talking to her boyfriend + 1 and if the +1 is not interested then he'll come up with some excuse to go to the bathroom or something.
This happens subconsciously most of the time, but sometimes you have to take the initiative if you want to resolve the situation. This is way better than coming out and giving a meta explanation to everybody about how the conversation is boring or how you're bored or something. Firstly, you're not risking that you may have misread the room. Maybe your friends actually thought the girlfriend was interesting and if you speak up and say you're bored or that she's talking too much you'll get shot down and probably annoy them. Secondly, this is a lot cleaner for the girl as well. She doesn't suffer any overt embarrassment that she would otherwise experience had someone told her straight to her face in front of multiple people that she talks too much.
Fully putting your feelings into accurate, precise words and expressing them to a group is not always the best solution to uncomfortable social situations. I bet it's not the best solution the majority of the time. But that doesn't mean you just have to suppress your emotions, you can express them in more subtle ways that maybe aren't 100% explicitly honest.
I feel that this is the best solution from r that situation, which is also the most difficult among them. Calling someone out on talking too much is difficult for you and mortifying for them. If they have said they have social anxiety, it's even worse.
Creating a new conversation seems like it's often the solution to a bad conversation.
For this reason, I avoid fixed seating arrangements in socials situations. I actively try to prevent or change them.
I agree that there are awkward and non-awkward meta conversations. However, perhaps on average, meta-conversations can tend to be awkward because they:
I think in a larger sense, there is an implicit hierarchy in many social groups that rewards status based on the ability to mesh automatically, and just get a lot of unspoken norms. It becomes almost a game of chicken or intimidation: whoever can deal longer assenting to status differentials or awkward moments while keeping quiet "wins" this game, and thus is more worthy of belonging. To some, it seems, the need to clarify or criticize any element of the unspoken social rules may signal a person's inability to "vibe" with however the social order has ended up, signaling that they don't belong among the people who "get it"
Making meta-comments feels like a status claim.
Also. the hypothesis that meta-comments could improve the debate assumes that everyone else would agree with them. But if one person makes a meta-comment, and some other person disagrees with the meta-comment, they will soon have a meta-argument, and everyone else will be like "what happened to the original topic we wanted to discuss in the first place?"
Also, object-level disagreements can be "solved" by changing a topic. More difficult to do with a meta-level disagreement; the closest analogy would be to stop communicating (and find someone else to talk to).
Making meta-comments feels like a status claim.
Ah yeah that's a great point. I agree.
But if one person makes a meta-comment, and some other person disagrees with the meta-comment, they will soon have a meta-argument, and everyone else will be like "what happened to the original topic we wanted to discuss in the first place?"
I think that's definitely a failure mode that is likely to happen. However, I think that it's also a failure mode that is avoidable.
The status claim thing seems true. In fact most status hierarchies, those with higher status have more control over a broader, more generalized realm: the lower levels debate, and the higher levels control the frame of the debate, so by meta-commenting you are implicitly claiming the higher spot.
Interesting points! I generally agree. In particular, that a) there's a natural tendency for people to mesh with some groups more than others based on these unspoken norms, and people gravitate towards groups they mesh with, which mitigates the problem. But the problem still doesn't totally go away. Often times it doesn't even go away all that much.
b) I lean pretty strongly towards agreeing with the point about it coming across as a personal insult. In particular, that fifth example I gave with the girl at the tea house. If I spoke up in front of the group and called her out for dominating the conversation, yeah, I feel like it'd be awkward. I wish that weren't the case.
signaling that they don't belong among the people who "get it"
then signal that just getting it doesn't give people a right to dominate by making those who just get it slightly confused as you explain what's needed to make space in the conversation for those who don't just get it to participate. by doing so, those who just get it reveal their intent towards kindness or rudeness based on how they respond.
edit: huh, this got a strong downvote. interesting.
I think that, despite mentioning Larry David, you didn't consider the most useful technique when it comes to steer a conversation, which is to be an asshole while using a hefty dose of humor.
In my experience, if you try to have a meta-conversation, no matter how delicately you put it, you are, in my experience at least, going to ruin the situation and make people uncomfortable. But if you are funny and shameless enough, you can get away with murder, you can be as blunt as you want to be and people is going to to laugh it off while still giving you points for being able to correct the situation.
When it comes to social dynamics, my experience tells me that power triumphs delicacy and decency. The times I have been myself in a situation in which someone did 80% of the talk I just said out loud something like:
'Hey! Come on! Why don't you shut the fuck up already? You are driving me crazy, I don't even remember the sound of my own voice anymore. It was masculine? I thought that it was masculine. And deep. Heavenly even. It is not? Not a little bit heavenly? You ruined me. That's what you did with that much talking. I'm now a listener!'.
The other person may fight back or may feel bad. In the first case, you can banter a little; in the second, you just say: 'oh, don't take it so seriously, I really like you, you know that, I just want to hear what other people has to say and I'm a little bit of an asshole, everyone knows. We can still be best friends, right? What are your thoughts on betrayal, bestie?'.
I have cultivated an image of someone who always says what he wants and who can take many jabs without feeling insulted. So people let me say anything and laugh at it while still listening to what I say.
I have found out that the most intelligent thing in social situations, no matter how smart the other people are, is to pretend that you are rude and stupid when necessary, almost feral. I have found out that the only thing that makes you lose prestige in a social situation is to appear as someone weak that can be stepped on.
I believe that for highly educated, highly intelligent, sensible people this is hard to accept. But it is my experience. Confidence and bluntness beats carefulness and thoughtfulness every time. And rationality is about wining, isn't it? To win, you sometimes need to act as an idiot and an asshole.
Even if you don't have a sense of hierarchy, I can assure you that other people have it.
Your comment about using humor as a way to navigate delicate meta-conversations is thought-provoking. It's fascinating how confidence and bluntness can often help accomplish one's goals in social situations, and it can indeed be a useful rationality tool. However, the challenge seems to strike a balance between being assertive and avoiding causing harm. Do you think this approach may sometimes risk pushing people into defensive modes or obscuring important underlying issues? How would you determine when this method is most effective?
Consider that I can only talk from my experience.
It is a risky move, for sure, and you are going to piss off some people. But I have found out that said pissed off people are almost always inclined not only to forgive you if you make the smallest gesture of peace, but to befriend you and to appreciate you. I have found out that people really appreciate honesty, and acting this way comes of as idealistic and honest. Whereas I have found out that you can't really recover in practice from being seen as pathetic, whiny or weak (only a long time and a miracle can make you recover from that). And I believe that most delicate approaches are perceived as low status and coming from frailty. In my experience, women are way more unforgiving towards weakness and more lenient towards assholeness. With men, you will need to concede and lose from time to time, I strongly advise against "wining" too much against men, you need to let them take some jabs even if you have thought the perfect answer and you can always come on top.
The worst of this approach will be felt when the other person is depressed, very insecure and places himself at the lowest echelon of the hierarchy, but don't accept said position and deludes himself into thinking that he is much better than what he is. I say: avoid as a general rule that kind of people, and this is a good test to detect them; they are usually vulnerable narcissists, or something very similar to that, and they can't take the slightness jab without feeling injured and vengeful. If you feel deeply hurt and resented with any kind of negative feedback, learn how to sincerely laugh at yourself. The more secure and healthy the people around you, the better they will receive this approach. Low status people who don't delude themselves will also look up to you. Particularly timid people who would like to act like you, but they don't find the courage to do so.
You must also come up as fundamentally good. If you are seen like ultimately evil and wanting to cause real harm, this approach won't work with decent people, but it will still work with terrible people. If you feel venom in your mouth, swallow it. Only talk when you really find it funny and you are not moved by anger. You must be seen as generous and just, and I recommend to truly be generous and just instead of pretending to be those things, but, while still being truly generous and just, make a show out of it, I always celebrate out loud everything good that I do, particularly when it is a little thing, big things are better discovered indirectly, but you should boast about your little gestures, I always say: 'look at how good I am' at the smallest favours I do, but I also say: 'don't worry about it, I like you, we are friends' at the big favours, because people really love a rascal with a heart of gold.
Also, and I can't stress this enough. Take as much as you give. Being generous must be accompanied by the ability of being the receptor of generousness, otherwise you will also be seen as too needy and weak.
I think this is an important topic. I think what's missing from this discussion is skill and kindness. Conversation is an art. Meta-conversation can be incredibly useful. Like other conversation, it won't be useful if it makes people argumentative, or uncomfortable enough to drop out of the conversation.
Everything is dependent on your role in the group and your personal style and skills. Making sure your tone of voice sounds kind and relaxed (ideally, because you really are kind and relaxed) makes most types of suggestions go better. Except if you're being ignored, and the situation is important enough to be worth stepping on some toes. Even then, I think a kind and relaxed tone is compatible with being forceful and repetitive.
Only the first example is one that I'd call a full meta-conversation, to identify the problem to be solved and who should solve it. The others are meta in the sense that they're about communication style rather than content, but not meta in terms of solving a more abstract problem, and it's not helpful to mix the two kinds of meta.
I'm also not sure it's actually taboo - it's sometimes a little uncomfortable, but I don't think you'd be shunned or expelled from a group if you tried to address the communication issues. You will find, in many casual groups, that some or all of the members PREFER this style, and you'll need to decide whether to join in or leave (or put up with the annoyance of a non-preferred turn-taking protocol). But actually noticing and asking is both common and unpunished in most contexts I've seen.
Worth noting that most of these are about preferences or your subjective interpretation, not objective right/wrong. I think probably keeping in mind that you are making a meta request of the person/group to compromise toward your subjective preference of communication mode, rather than 'correcting' someone, would make it easier. Also, then you should consider that in this compromise you probably need to come halfway, cutting in more than you'd normally be comfortable with in the fast-talking-over each other situation, pausing longer in the slow conversation situation.
Also, you can hint at desire for shifting meta modes, and that's a much easier 'social move' to do and to receive than direct discussion of the issue. Hints would probably be the way to go for that last example.
Hmm, discussing an order explicitly is generally not a taboo, and after that one can make a point of order. What is probably frowned upon is selectively creating and applying a rule to a specific person, even if that person is the reason for the rule in the first place.
My sense is that in the abstract people would say there's nothing wrong with it, but when it comes time to actually do so in a real conversation, it's usually awkward. Well, I think there are exceptions that aren't awkward, but my sense is that most of the time it would be awkward.
I would have interrupted with meta conversation in every single one of those instances. in order to make it kind I would have tried to describe why the people making the mistake were making one I didn't want them to have already known better than to make, and that I was simply explaining why I thought stepping back would be good. for the very talkative person I might have hushed a few times as they got used to changed settings, but I'd also have made sure conversation kept including them so it was visibly not a rejection. to accomplish this I would have intensely powered my interrupt to make sure I took the stage to briefly explain, say that I have a short point about format, then yield once my meta point was made. I do this frequently around non rationalists in voice chats online and it almost always goes well. if you'd like to hang out on vrchat I would be down to show rather than tell.
but overall: nah just ignore the taboo. we don't have time to respect silly taboos. just reassure people you don't think they should have known you'd feel this way and it usually goes fine.
but overall: nah just ignore the taboo. we don't have time to respect silly taboos. just reassure people you don't think they should have known you'd feel this way and it usually goes fine.
I hear ya, but I also disagree. I don't expect that sort of thing to go fine. I expect that usually it'd do a lot more harm than good, looking at it both from a selfish perspective (it'd make me feel uncomfortable) and an altruistic one (it'd make everyone else in the group feel uncomfortable).
Well, perhaps the issue is how to do it well? I don't generally find it to get negative reactions.
edit: except for here, where I seem to be getting strong downvotes without disagreement. very curious what the strong downvoter believes about my comments.
I can't imagine getting a good result in the IRL situation with someone talking too much while also saying they've got social anxiety. In a chat room without the professed anxiety I can see it going well.
I like that you mention being kind, I think that's key for saying difficult things without ruining a situation or making yourself unpopular. I just can't imagine how you'd come off as kind in that situation. Perhaps an example would illustrate it?
I didn't downvote, but I'm guessing others might have similar qualms about your proposed approach.
Said in response to the social anxiety thing: "Aww, I get the social anxiety. Here, I want to both include you and help you flow with the conversation, so let's help manage timings. Sometimes I have high internal-pressure-to-talk, and it helps me to leave slightly larger pauses after you speak, so that others get a chance to interrupt. Would you be up for trying that?"
In private, I think that would work. In public, I would see that statement as being incredibly uncomfortable for everyone hearing it, and cause a massive increase in social anxiety for the individual getting that implied public criticism.
Perhaps it's less fluent here. I do mean it to be a criticism and I do mean to accept that it might cause a spike in anxiety; the way it plans to respond to a spike in anxiety is to show-not-tell that they really are welcome.
I'm thinking of not just a spike in anxiety, I mean a permanent increase in social anxiety after having their fears of being socially inappropriate realized in extremely embarrassing public criticism.
People mean a lot of things when they say they have social anxiety. Everyone can get nervous in social situations. But real anxiety can be absolutely crippling, and I wouldn't want to make it worse for anyone.
it only works when you are able to reduce social anxiety by showing that they're welcome. someone who is cripplingly anxious typically wants to feel like they're safe, so showing them a clearer map to safety includes detecting the structure of their social anxiety first and getting in sync with it. then you can show them they're welcome in a way that makes them feel safer, not less. to do this requires gently querying their anxiety's agentic target and inviting the group to behave in ways that satisfy what their brain's overactivation wants.
I agree with all of that, but the way you described that interaction sounds like it wouldn't even come close to accomplishing these goals. There's a gap in communication. I'd have to see you do it in person to know if I thought it was working.
They are not taboo. They are hierarchy-restricted and for good reason. Turning the lens inward can only be done from a position of trust and accountability. Which is why all your examples fit a "mentorship/leadership role" frame.
Democratising the right to meta-conversation could be considered taboo, but again for good reason. It empowers unknown quantities, while also diffusing responsibility. Anything said cannot be unsaid, even if no decision is made. And a bad takes made on an individual level can be distanced by removing the leadership role, while collectively made bad takes will remain in the air in perpetuity.
So, while you might want to say all those things, the fact the feedback is people being offended, uncomfortable, embarrassed, and angry at your attempts is simply because you individually have not earned the right, and very likely by opening up the conversation to the room have extended a poisoned-invitation to those that know better than to claim it.
And arguably, the awkwardness itself is an inherent and much-needed barrier-of-entry to meta-conversations, exactly to illicit trepidation and cost-benefit analysis, preventing noise or bad-faith. As in any meta-conversation worth having, should be initiated at a cost.
While it might be restricted based on relationship state between people, I can't agree that that makes it restricted to some sort of authority hierarchy. Accepting that such interactions imply an authority hierarchy is toxic and unhelpful.
If people find an interaction awkward, then they can bring that up. But it doesn't warrant giving up your right to not bow to others as authorities in everyday conversation.
I like the descriptive point about it being hierarchy-restricted. That sounds at least partially correct. I can think of situations where such meta-conversation wouldn't be taboo for someone who is high status, such as the CTO in example 1.
However, I can also think of situations where there just isn't really (enough of) a status hierarchy. As for prescriptive claim that it should be hierarchy-restricted, I'm not sure. I could see things getting out of hand if everyone is allowed to initiate meta-conversation, but that also feels like a solvable problem. You need to establish some sort of norm about how to balance meta-conversation with object-level conversation. I also think that there needs to be a solution for situations without clear status hierarchies.
Accepting that "high status" is what authorizes it might be part of the issue in the first place here. Perhaps that's what you need to get rid of? "status" is a pattern of authority-deference in a network structure that is weighted with significant balance in one direction. In general, such imbalances are unhealthy and show a bug in the social graph. Strong downvote for accepting hierarchy as normal. Find a way to plan how to make it go away from reality instead, perhaps? Focus on relationship state rather than single-variable "status", for example.
It's not so much that I'm endorsing the status hierarchy stuff. It's more that I'm trying to take the action that has the best consequences. Perhaps your position is that 1) status hierarchy shouldn't gatekeep meta-conversation, 2) my acting as if it does makes the norm stronger, which is a bad consequence, and therefore 3) I shouldn't act as if it does. My objection is that (2) is extremely weak given that my action is just an extremely small drop in the bucket. I think it rounds to zero and that the discomfort I'd cause others and myself outweighs it.
Latching on to the "hierarchy" keyword as an object of ire, and completely disregarding "position of trust and accountability", does a massive disservice to the thrust of the argument.
You can easily repackage the concept as "role-based", with someone taking the position of mediator or chairperson by collective agreement. The point is that the person is made aware of their responsibilities to promote a better conversation and is expected to be more sensitive to the peculiarities of their role, including accepting in their turn the potential for feedback or meta-meta-conversations.
Specialisation, separation of concerns, and checks-and-balances are neither unhealthy nor show a bug in the social graph. Neither does deferring decision making to a delegated individual. Good networks don't need to be homogenous.
I am consistently able to pull off being that role for the first time by simply doing this. Not the way I interact here on lesswrong, of course, that would never work, I'm too spicy here. But I gave an example in another thread.
I often find myself in a conversation that feels like it's falling into some sort of failure mode. Some examples:
In each of these situations, I wish that I could have spoken up and initiated a conversation about the conversation. A meta-conversation. Something like this:
After writing this, I'm reminded of this interview with Larry David. He talks about how the "true Larry" is the Curb Larry and Real Life Larry is an act. Real Life Larry has all the same thoughts as Curb Larry but just never has the courage to act on them. Real Life Larry aspires to be Curb Larry, but fails to get there. Similarly, I aspire to be the person who says all of the things in the second list, but I never[1] actually get there.
Well, that's not entirely correct. I'm not sure that I aspire to say the things in that second list. To be "Curb Adam", for lack of a better phrase. Saying those sorts of things has the undesirable consequence of making people feel various bad feelings. Uncomfortable, offended, embarrassed, angry. It also has the desirable consequence of molding the shape of the conversation into a better form. Unfortunately, I think the pros usually don't outweigh the cons.
But they should! Well, "should" isn't the best word to use. Here's what I mean. Currently, in every culture I am aware of, this sort of meta-conversation is taboo.
The extent to which it is taboo varies. Amongst the rationalist community here in Portland it isn't as taboo as it would be if I was, say, chatting with a bunch of strangers I just met at a coffee shop. But even in the rationalist community I think it's largely taboo. I say that because meta-conversations[2] don't happen too often, and it seems to me that the reason for this is because they are a little awkward to have.
I wish that weren't the case though. I wish that the things I wrote in that second list were just viewed as normal, mundane, every-day things to say that no one batted an eye at. I wish they weren't uncomfortable or awkward. I wish that meta-conversation wasn't taboo.
*rarely. Once in a while I do have some enlightened moments where "Curb Adam" takes the steering wheel.
Well, I guess there are different types of meta-conversations. Some of them do happen and aren't awkward. Like maybe "It's getting a little cold out actually. Do you guys want to go inside?". I'm having a hard time coming up with good examples of those though. And of coming up with a good phrase for "meta-conversations of the type that currently are awkward to have".