I associate, "don't rock the boat," with difficult family members. It's hard to see the extent of psychological abuse from the outside, so outside folks tell victims not to rock the boat.
I associate, "don't rock the boat," with difficult family members. It's hard to see the extent of psychological abuse from the outside, so outside folks tell victims not to rock the boat.
Generally speaking, when someone asks me where I wanna eat, I simply answer with the place where I wanna eat. I'm remarkably candid in most situations. I don't have a story about the Abilene...
Generally speaking, when someone asks me where I wanna eat, I simply answer with the place where I wanna eat. I'm remarkably candid in most situations.
I don't have a story about the Abilene Paradox taking place with my agreement. I'm pretty sure that my natural resistance to group phenomena like this is one reason of my low social standing.
If anything, that contradiction seems to reinforce communal bonds to the detriment of efficiency and individual interests. I would venture that engaging in it actually fulfills a purpose. Going against reason or my own interests should demonstrate that I'm the ultimate team player. My sacrifice elevates my status in the group. The goal is neither efficience nor moral virtue. The goal is group cohesion.
The idea of having a preferred place to eat when someone asks you is so foreign to me. My reaction of deferring to other's food choices is because I have no idea what I want. Especially right...
The idea of having a preferred place to eat when someone asks you is so foreign to me. My reaction of deferring to other's food choices is because I have no idea what I want. Especially right after I have been asked.
You bring up some good points, but the tough thing to reconcile with your hypothesis is that people don't know you are making a sacrifice. As the wiki page points out, it occurs in part because we...
You bring up some good points, but the tough thing to reconcile with your hypothesis is that people don't know you are making a sacrifice. As the wiki page points out, it occurs in part because we don't have access to each other's thoughts, and we believe that the group option is what the majority likes, when that may not be the case.
Sometimes a sacrifice is revealed later on. And even when it's not, you demonstrated conformity, reinforcing your allegiance to a group. At the very least, it's an evasion. You avoided becoming a...
Sometimes a sacrifice is revealed later on. And even when it's not, you demonstrated conformity, reinforcing your allegiance to a group. At the very least, it's an evasion. You avoided becoming a target. You also avoided implicitly making others insecure in the case that your dissenting position is proven right.
But that only happen in hostile groups, of course. Most groups are not looking to hurt or ostracize anyone, although many are.
Reading HN (sorry for linking a comment, I hit a paywall on the actual article), I saw a study referenced that feels like exactly this phenomena: that students would prefer to collectively be off...
Reading HN (sorry for linking a comment, I hit a paywall on the actual article), I saw a study referenced that feels like exactly this phenomena: that students would prefer to collectively be off of social media, but in practice they are all actively on it even though they know it’s a detriment to their mental health.
This feels like a form of the prisoner’s dilemma: there’s a clear Pareto optimum, but due to the nature of FOMO everyone makes the collective result worse for each other.
Glad to know about this as we get ready to move (back) to Abilene this summer. I’m sure people will let me talk about it at dinner, assuming someone else at the table wanted to hear about it.
Glad to know about this as we get ready to move (back) to Abilene this summer. I’m sure people will let me talk about it at dinner, assuming someone else at the table wanted to hear about it.
This immediately made me think of the great New York Times piece, Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek. If I recall correctly (and sorry if I butcher this), but one of the main themes of the...
This immediately made me think of the great New York Times piece, Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek. If I recall correctly (and sorry if I butcher this), but one of the main themes of the article is that, every single member of this group was a competent backcountry skier who knew the risks avalanches pose. They each likely knew that it was a dangerous day to be out but the "stoke" of the group kept each individual from raising their hand to stop the group or remove themselves from the situation.
That seems like a lot of words to talk about garden variety codependency. That is, “I don’t feel empowered to voice my own truth because it’s more important for you to accept me than respect my...
That seems like a lot of words to talk about garden variety codependency. That is, “I don’t feel empowered to voice my own truth because it’s more important for you to accept me than respect my own inner experience.”
I don't think you're wrong, but it's also the worst possible interpretation of the effect. I think you could look at the same scenario and say "these people would speak up if they really wanted...
I don't think you're wrong, but it's also the worst possible interpretation of the effect. I think you could look at the same scenario and say "these people would speak up if they really wanted one choice, but being fairly ambivalent, they are choosing to do what [they think] others want to do out of grace."
Hmmm. That’s a fair point. It doesn’t seem to totally apply in that scenario, however because nobody was really ambivalent about their own preference, they were just thinking about what the others...
Hmmm. That’s a fair point. It doesn’t seem to totally apply in that scenario, however because nobody was really ambivalent about their own preference, they were just thinking about what the others wanted. Which is fine, except that they made an assumption, that the other folks, weren’t able to take responsibility for their own preferences. In other words, in functional relationships I should be able to voice my preference and also Voice how strong that preference is. And to do otherwise is dysfunctional, and as I described it “garden variety, codependent“. it seems the healthy way to approach this would be to say, I really don’t want that but if everybody else does, I’m happy to go along with it.
In a perfectly logical sense, sure, but that doesn't always guarantee the best outcome. If my partner was sincerely excited to go see a new movie that I had no interest in, I'd go with them just...
In a perfectly logical sense, sure, but that doesn't always guarantee the best outcome. If my partner was sincerely excited to go see a new movie that I had no interest in, I'd go with them just because it makes them happy. If I told them honestly that I didn't care about the movie but I'd still go with them just because they didn't want to go alone, that would obviously put a huge damper on the event for them.
In both outcomes, I end up seeing a movie I don't care about so I'll have the same experience either way, but in one of the outcomes my partner has a better experience because I'm (dishonestly) expressing interest in what they want to do.
On the other hand, if they suggested a movie because they thought that I would enjoy it (even though neither of us care about it), we'd fall into the Abeline situation.
But that's just social gambling. You can't always choose the optimal outcome.
I’ve ended up participating in saying grace before dinner among a group of atheists who all assumed at least some of the others were Christian.
I was happy I came across this; now I recognize it when it’s happening in groups I’m in. So, tildes, what are your best Abilene paradox stories?
I associate, "don't rock the boat," with difficult family members. It's hard to see the extent of psychological abuse from the outside, so outside folks tell victims not to rock the boat.
Generally speaking, when someone asks me where I wanna eat, I simply answer with the place where I wanna eat. I'm remarkably candid in most situations.
I don't have a story about the Abilene Paradox taking place with my agreement. I'm pretty sure that my natural resistance to group phenomena like this is one reason of my low social standing.
If anything, that contradiction seems to reinforce communal bonds to the detriment of efficiency and individual interests. I would venture that engaging in it actually fulfills a purpose. Going against reason or my own interests should demonstrate that I'm the ultimate team player. My sacrifice elevates my status in the group. The goal is neither efficience nor moral virtue. The goal is group cohesion.
The idea of having a preferred place to eat when someone asks you is so foreign to me. My reaction of deferring to other's food choices is because I have no idea what I want. Especially right after I have been asked.
You bring up some good points, but the tough thing to reconcile with your hypothesis is that people don't know you are making a sacrifice. As the wiki page points out, it occurs in part because we don't have access to each other's thoughts, and we believe that the group option is what the majority likes, when that may not be the case.
Sometimes a sacrifice is revealed later on. And even when it's not, you demonstrated conformity, reinforcing your allegiance to a group. At the very least, it's an evasion. You avoided becoming a target. You also avoided implicitly making others insecure in the case that your dissenting position is proven right.
But that only happen in hostile groups, of course. Most groups are not looking to hurt or ostracize anyone, although many are.
Reading HN (sorry for linking a comment, I hit a paywall on the actual article), I saw a study referenced that feels like exactly this phenomena: that students would prefer to collectively be off of social media, but in practice they are all actively on it even though they know it’s a detriment to their mental health.
This feels like a form of the prisoner’s dilemma: there’s a clear Pareto optimum, but due to the nature of FOMO everyone makes the collective result worse for each other.
Glad to know about this as we get ready to move (back) to Abilene this summer. I’m sure people will let me talk about it at dinner, assuming someone else at the table wanted to hear about it.
This immediately made me think of the great New York Times piece, Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek. If I recall correctly (and sorry if I butcher this), but one of the main themes of the article is that, every single member of this group was a competent backcountry skier who knew the risks avalanches pose. They each likely knew that it was a dangerous day to be out but the "stoke" of the group kept each individual from raising their hand to stop the group or remove themselves from the situation.
That seems like a lot of words to talk about garden variety codependency. That is, “I don’t feel empowered to voice my own truth because it’s more important for you to accept me than respect my own inner experience.”
I don't think you're wrong, but it's also the worst possible interpretation of the effect. I think you could look at the same scenario and say "these people would speak up if they really wanted one choice, but being fairly ambivalent, they are choosing to do what [they think] others want to do out of grace."
Hmmm. That’s a fair point. It doesn’t seem to totally apply in that scenario, however because nobody was really ambivalent about their own preference, they were just thinking about what the others wanted. Which is fine, except that they made an assumption, that the other folks, weren’t able to take responsibility for their own preferences. In other words, in functional relationships I should be able to voice my preference and also Voice how strong that preference is. And to do otherwise is dysfunctional, and as I described it “garden variety, codependent“. it seems the healthy way to approach this would be to say, I really don’t want that but if everybody else does, I’m happy to go along with it.
In a perfectly logical sense, sure, but that doesn't always guarantee the best outcome. If my partner was sincerely excited to go see a new movie that I had no interest in, I'd go with them just because it makes them happy. If I told them honestly that I didn't care about the movie but I'd still go with them just because they didn't want to go alone, that would obviously put a huge damper on the event for them.
In both outcomes, I end up seeing a movie I don't care about so I'll have the same experience either way, but in one of the outcomes my partner has a better experience because I'm (dishonestly) expressing interest in what they want to do.
On the other hand, if they suggested a movie because they thought that I would enjoy it (even though neither of us care about it), we'd fall into the Abeline situation.
But that's just social gambling. You can't always choose the optimal outcome.