this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
65 points (93.3% liked)
Casual Conversation
2983 readers
235 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s why autism is so hard when people often use this kind of sense as their ultimate guidance, at least during first meeting.
However you can figure out more consciously how to spot certain people also those that have the neurodivergent feels about them and learn consciously that they aren’t a danger or some plague and what their needs and obstacles are and why they behave differently.
I have an impression though that not that many people are willing to do so or even know how many different people exist and their possible troubles that make them maybe look and behave a bit odd.
As always education I guess. People should just get to know various other people and then these problems will cease to be. Older people have vastly more accurate feelings and judgments or withhold them long enough.
Knowledge about people together with gut instinct works much better. Then you also know why you feel that way and can judge better if you should listen to it or not.
It must sound super stupid and like pure nonsense to asd ppl for example from what I gathered who fundamentally think differently about it altogether but people really do use this thing daily everywhere from business to college parties. It’s like dogs smelling one another and it does take some effort from everyone to have the right smell
I mean after all apparently people emit some kind of pheromones. Guys look at girls differently based on something as invisible as hormone levels. It’s not that strange that after many years of evolution we are super perceptive to social details
I wouldn't blame someone for not betting on it though. There is a reason people in activism often speak of unconscious bias/prejudice. Many people in the psychic industry have done something people would say is similar to this in order to, say, conclude who committed a murder, to determine if Amanda Barry is still alive, to determine who would become a president or prime minister, or, in my best friend' case, to determine who is asexual because they have an acedar (or GP-ace or whatever people call the asexual equivalent to gaydar, though it hasn't always been right).
In a world where we are constantly warned not to self-diagnose (let alone diagnose others) based on how things "come off", as someone who has been a victim of mass judgment based on intuition (as well as second-hand, since many people are mistaken as me based on the same whim, and every time, it's always proven to have been premature), I shake my head at the idea of significant verdicts made by the masses being made on nothing more than a whim, and shake my head even more when this turns out to be false and people either do or don't outright specify that it was because they "had a feeling". For such things, especially when it means avoiding something like the Salem witch trials, I for one want to look at every nook and cranny, as I believe in due process and seeing things for myself.
In overwhelming majority of practical cases you can’t look under every nook and cranny. You must use the gut feeling in some way or another.
For example you can only tell if someone is sane and a good fit for you in relationship after like a year of living together yes? But you don’t get to have some kind of trial year or something you must use your gut feeling to tell if someone seems okay.
It’s very important thing in society as else nothing could ever be done in a reasonable amount of time. It fails sometimes though but that doesn’t mean it should be rejected as we literally cannot function without approximations and first glance judgments
It must suck to be at the anomaly end of this social heuristics and I sympathise but otherwise social algorithm would be of exponential complexity. Way too much for a limited lifespan of 80 years and even shorter kids making and dating window.
We cannot replace the heuristics but we can strive to make them better by education and knowledge.
In a typical trial of some kind, if I didn't have proof or couldn't get it, I would refuse to act in a way that had negative ramifications for everyone, not just use intuition as a tiebreaker. The last time I was consulted over a conflict, one person said another person scammed them via an art scam and the second person denied it. Knowing that, somehow, the first person did indeed lose what she said she lost, whether or not at the hands of a scam, I was more than glad to refill what they had lost out of my own pocket, especially as an alternative to interpreting what actually went on between them.
I think that is also a decision. In your ruling you punished yourself out of three options. That was viable then because the amount of money was small but if the money in question was millions of dollars it wouldn’t be feasible for the judge to pay out of pocket.
If it was millions of dollars, I would take no action whatsoever. It would still be preferable over purely intuitive decision-making.