Geek Social Fallacies...part 2?

[jbsegal]

So, of course, everyone saw, read and grokked 5 Geek Social Fallacies, right?

I'm still waiting for GSF 6-{N} to be identified. No, I don't have any ideas yet.

Do you? What are they?

Comments

[coffeekitty.livejournal.com]

i know what a GSF400 is ;-)

[coffeekitty.livejournal.com]

my addition, though it would be a bit less universal, perhaps, is "all geek women are flattered and gratified by any and all male attention. Corollary: touching without permission is always okay." Rationale: many geek women, having spent their teenage years as social pariahs, are, in reality, delighted to be thought desirable and go through a phase of reveling in the fact that people will flirt with them. the existence of the cohort in this phase causes some geeks to hope that this behavior is a norm, and become annoyed and confused when they discover that no, it's not a universal. i wouldn't believe that this is true if i hadn't had the continual experience, over the years, of being thought unfriendly and hostile simply because i generally do not like to be touched. i have, in fact, had to act hostile to convince Joe Linux that NO i do NOT want a backrub and that does NOT mean "try again in five minutes."

[lionofgod.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can certainly testify to that one; I've had the luck to fall in with geeks
who got that one out of their heads a long time ago, but it's quite disturbing
to have someone thirty years your elder assume that of course you want to
sit in his lap... it's the main curse of being young, female, and geeky.

Perhaps not so oddly, I don't think I've ever met a female who suffered from this
particular fallacy. ;)

[coffeekitty.livejournal.com]

i was just thinking that if the claptrap about some huge percentage of geeks being measurably out there on the autistic-disorders spectrum is true, it would be both understandable (missed social cues) and utterly bizarre (hypersensitive to tactile stimuli) that so many geeks are so overly and sometimes inappropriately touchy-feely.

i'd say that the female version of this fallacy is an internal belief that the more flirting they are the object of, the better. this will sometimes mutate into "the more flirting of which i am the object, except from Captian Halitosis, the better." the revised or mutated version will then proceed to cause hurt feelings and interact badly with GSF#1, since the female with said revised version of the fallacy will then often have a meltdown if Captain Halitosis shows up at the party puppy pile.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

I was certainly a young female who fell into the corollary fallacy of assuming that any geek male would want to be touched by me. I think I made a fair number of males uncomfortable in my youth by just charging into their personal space and expecting to be appreciated for it. With females I was always more careful, having almost gotten beaten up by a biker-dude by mistaking his girlfriend's friendliness for flirting.

Now there are times when I want to touch a friend, and I'm pretty sure they want it back, but I'm shy about it because I know I never really learned the "normal" boundaries.

[blk]

I've been in this category, as well. When I first came to college, I was suddenly smothered with all this attention and it was considered ok and normal to give affection and other hugs. Being a closet and repressed affection-loving person, I embraced this idea and went around taking advantage of my ability to hug everybody. Until I was taken by surprise by people who didn't like it. And suddenly I realized the fallacy, and adjusted my behavior to be much more agreeable.

Nowadays, I'm much more restrained. I got over my "like all touch" phase and now I'm in the "like some touch a whole lot, and I get enough that I don't need it from anybody else who might not be comfortable with it" one.

[tb]

To be fair, there also do exist geek women who thrust unwanted attention upon geek men and get horribly upset when turned down, no matter how gently. I've witnessed it myself on more than one occasion.

[coffeekitty.livejournal.com]

haven't myself witnessed it, but am very willing to believe that it exists and i haven't seen it because i haven't been on the lookout for it.

[xeger.livejournal.com]

Hrm. I haven't had too many problems with people touching inappropriately - but I suspect a great deal of that is personality. Then again, I seem to recall one youngster who just didn't understand that when I told him I'd break his arms if he didn't stop annoying me, I meant it.

The fact that multiple other people explained that I really did mean it -also- didn't make an impression.

My throwing his leather jacket on a two story escalator going the wrong way -did- finally get the message across. Pfeh.

Then again, I don't think I ever suffered from a problem with being thought undesirable, as much as being undesirable to the particular group I was interested in at the time...

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

Gods know you scared me from hitting on you too hard at that Pennsic, lo these many years ago...not that I didn't want to...:)

[klingonlandlady.livejournal.com]

yeah, dunno. I seem to have perfected the knack of being either Oblivious or Intimidating, as I don't much have the unwanted-attention problem anymore, and never seem to get touched inappropriately. I do get corralled into unwanted conversations at times, but so does everyone, and Miss Manners says "it's been lovely talking with you but I must go now" is acceptable.
Haven't quite perfected the knack of making entertaining conversation with people I DO think are interesting and want to see more of, tho... If there's someone I really want to impress, my conversation skills seem to amount to saying "glub" and wandering off.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Heh. Yeah, I know that feeling. But, in my current social circles, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Possibly because there are large numbers of female geeks. :)

[tb]

Following the stuff discussed above, there might be something along the lines of "only my mind is important" or "no one has a right to a physical preference in partners" or "no one should turn me down ever". Those might be considered variations/combinations of GSF 1, 2 and maybe 5.

I've seen geeks of all sexes come on too hard to their targets and get bent out of shape when said target isn't automatically willing to touch or be touched by them, let alone do them. I've also heard targets of all sexes express how unhappy and awkward it makes them feel when all they want to do is have some control over who invades their personal space.

[coffeekitty.livejournal.com]

no one should turn me down ever

suggest amendment to: (for whatever reason, perhaps having been turned down universally or in humiliating ways in the past) "when i am turned down it's really bad and scary and I CAN'T DEAL, so i'll pretend that it's their problem."

Tangential thought

[roadnotes.livejournal.com]

The "no one has a right to a physical preference in partners" is an evil thing that's often applied in the overlapping subcultures (I've seen in in the pagan community, the bdsm community, and several fandoms). And it seems to only apply when you dont want to fuck me -- that's when I pull it out and beat you into submission with it. Your preference, or need, or other relationships don't matter.

(Yeah, i'm a little bitter. I found out after getting involved with someone that he wanted me because he fancied himself an "alpha male" in the community, and he'd decided that I would look good as a trophy.)

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

I've seen geeks of all sexes come on too hard to their targets and get bent out of shape when said target isn't automatically willing to touch or be touched by them

uhm. yeah. it seems that the typical response to any form of "no, sorry, thanx, not interested" is "why"...

and "why" is amazingly dangerous. i've found you can't really answer it, without the person getting bent out of shape, and if you *do* answer it, they often will either try to convince you that you're wrong, and keep asking, or *fix* it, thus removing your objection, which means you HAVE to say yes once they've badgered all the negatives from your responses, and then of course, since "NO" is likely anyway, they ask "why" and ...

i've gotten literally cornered by a few folx here and there over the years , who figured for whatever reason they could "get something" despite the lack of other flirting indicators/etc, and while flattered, said "no" or "currently taken" and well, that wasn't good enough. only "yes, yes, take me now, here, now oh my god yes" was probably good enough. "why" happened. do not answer "why". no is no. really.

then there's another phenomena... "startle factor". when stalking your prey, sometimes that overly fast/aggressive approach (too fast for them basically, perhaps too slow for some others), scares/startles them enough, that basically, even if they WERE interested, or might be, they're not now, or ever, basically because of that visceral response. that's fairly tricky too.

well. time to hit the bed and dream of summer :)

[xeger.livejournal.com]

Heh. I've gotten pretty good at spitting out "That's very flattering, but I'm in a long term, stable, monogamous relationship"...

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

This was, however, years before that started....

[xeger.livejournal.com]

Well, yes :) That was rather a different time *GRIN*

Let's go a little Meta here...

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Another GSF? How about, "All social rules are absolutes"?

Re: Let's go a little Meta here...

[tb]

I think that's actually the root of all the GSFs.

All generalizations are false. Absolute statements are wrong. Death to all extremists.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

How about something about the concept of "friend" being binary?

It seems I hear a lot about how a person is either a friend or not a friend, and that a friend will do x, y, and z, and will appreciate everything about you and will not judge you at all, and if a person does x and z, but never y, or appreciates some things about you but thinks there are other things that are just not okay than that person is sending mixed signals, or a is a false-friend.

Since when is anything in this world, *especially* things that have to do with interpersonal relationships, so black-and-white? Can't people have non-hierarchical gradient scales of friends? Isn't it possible to like to share some kinds of time and thoughts and feelings with one person, and other kinds of time and thoughts and feelings with an other person and have both of those people be just as valid friends?

And can't it be okay for a friend to care very much about you, even love you, and not be able to also be your therapist?

[lionofgod.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this one's geek-specific, I don't know enough non-geeks. And I've only seen it on very rare occaisions. But it's
also the only thing I've seen in the social fallacies so far that's
caused me not just pain/suffering/angst but the loss of a friend
who Just Couldn't Deal with shades of grey in a fashion that boggles me. Have you, or anyone else, figured out how to get someone to get out
of this mindset, or even get through to them that not everyone works
that way? I could use some tips...

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

-The best person to ask would probably be a non-geek, n'est-ce pas?

Rule 4a

[cz_unit]

I think there should be a GSF 4a: "If I am mad at/not friends with someone and you are a friend of mine then you should not be friends with them either."

This is a sad one that I have seen in groups from time to time. Person A ticks off person B and as a result the friends of person B are expected to ostracize person A as a gesture of "support" for person B. The "How could you be my friend if you like this person who I don't like" sort of thing either expressed or implied.

This is not a problem if the friends of B think that person A is a moron anyway. Happens from time to time. However they should make those decisions for themselves, and not simply as a favor of person B.

Cool article otherwise. I'll fwd it to Alex.

CZ

Re: Rule 4a

[quietann.livejournal.com]

This is just as common in Mundania. Especially WRT ex- Significant Others, where people are expected to "take sides" and cut off the one whose side they don't take. I've had a lot of mundane acquaintances find it *incredibly* odd that I am friends with almost all my exes.

Re: Rule 4a

[fixx.livejournal.com]

It would have to be different in Fandom. With as much cross mating we do, there would be no surviving community if we weren't pretty tolerant that way.

As for getting along with your exes, well that's something I strive for but don't always succeed at. Unhappy experience has taught me that if a woman has *no* exes she's on good terms with, it's best I not get too involved with her. If she rants about wishing to, or worse yet, having actually vandalized his property, it is absolutely time to leave.

My latest SO has a number of exes she's on really good terms with but has warned me that if or when we should split, that I should be prepared for the fact it takes her about a year to "get over it" and then see the ex as a friend. I really like how honest and wise she can be.

Re: Rule 4a

[gingicat]

I'd agree with Ann that the "taking sides" thing is far more common in Mundania.

This doesn't stop me from being uncomfortable around people who are friends with my ex-husband. But he's the only ex I feel that way about.

Re: Rule 4a

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah...it's complicated...and then there's ex-so's of your ex-husband...that can be complicated, too.

Another day, another rev.

[tb]

Having slept on it, I think I want to express the physical contact GSFs discussed above as "touching is good" and "everyone is beautiful." Those seem to be in line with the rest of the GSFs in that they start out as pleasant and non-pathological but become problems when taken to extremes.

Re: Another day, another rev.

[cme]

I think a corollary to that would be "you should always be flattered by positive attention"- I mean, it's admiration, right? Someone likes you! How is that bad?

In all seriousness, I have encountered people who feel it is completely inappropriate to simply not like someone who likes you, regardless of personality clash or incompatible manners or bathing habits or whatever you can think of[1]. If they ask you out you can decline gracefully, of course, but it's not okay to not at least pretend to be friends with them after if they want that, and it's certainly not alright to not want to be friends with someone who wants to be your friend. I think in some cases this stems from "they're being nice, therefore you have a social obligation to be nice back"; in other cases it seems to stem from "I've been not liked by someone I desperately wanted to be friends with/date and It's Not Okay".

[1] I have not been chastised for being unhappy in cases of clearly inappropriate liking/attention (including touching or harassment or a simple in ability to understand "I'm sorry, really, I'm not interested"). But I have certainly been chided in borderline or subtle cases, where it seemed to the casual observer that the person doing the liking was being completely reasonable.

All material possessions are to be shared freely.

[jo-ellen.livejournal.com]

From drinks to cars, all possessions are to be shared freely. Planning to drive somewhere? People with this GSF will be very hurt if you don't offer them a ride. They might live several blocks away, but you should offer to go pick them up. Otherwise, you'll trigger all of their other GSFs. Also, if you buy something, people with this GSF will assume it's for their use, as well. Lending things/giving rides is a binary: either you do it all the time or never at all. So if you gave some hot guy a ride, the troll who should have been exorcised if it weren't for GSF 1 will expect the same treatment. Similarly, the person who dropped all of your game pieces in a mug of tea will expect to borrow your games all the time.