A big pet peeve
Okay, so here is something that drives me crazy. When you are eating out you do not have to wait for everyone to get their food before you start eating. This has to be one of the most stupid, most idiotic, most ridiculous of traditions. In fact, I will even go so far as to say that it is disrespectful of you, the person with food, to wait for me, the person without, to get food before you start eating. All you are saying is that you think I want you to just sit there and be hungry and let your food go cold.
No, of course that is not what I want. The only reason people still do this is that they think they are being polite and that this is the way people are supposed to act. I am all for being polite and respectful. What I am not in favor of is doing things just because that is the way things are done. No, I'm sorry. It doesn't make any sense. Give me one good reason why we should wait for everyone to get their food. And it is only going to be a good reason if it makes the food taste better, fills you up more, or makes it cheaper. Otherwise eat your god damn food when you get it!
Or don't eat. I guess the point is, do whatever you want. But don't expect me to wait for you to get your food, if I have mine.
9 April 2007 03:02pm UTC • 1035 views • 22 comments
Tagged with petpeeve, respect, manners, eating
Add a comment!
You must be a member to do that! Become a member or login!
Subscribe to the feeds:
22 comments
Boatswain The Fool
10 April 2007 02:08am UTC
Hmm... I try to wait for people to get their food before I eat mine. Here are four reasons that I consider it a good idea to do so (though, granted, I consider the latter two more convincing than the former) :
Peon Peetie
10 April 2007 05:57am UTC
can i just say 'different strokes'?Dread Pirate Benjamin
10 April 2007 06:09am UTC
For the most part 1 and 4 are addressed in my post. I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't really want to be around people that think you should wait.
With 2, I find it a hassle, not a privilege. I don't want people to ever wait for me to get my food, and I certainly don't want to have to tell them so.
3 is a very valid point. I guess I was thinking more for large groups where there isn't pressure on any one person to help maintain the conversation.
I find it interesting that you mention wearing a suit to an interview as a sign of respect. Because that is another big pet peeve. I have met 7 candidates for teaching positions in the math department in the last year and every time someone wore a suit I got an immediate bad feeling about them. They look like they are just trying to impress you. Which is not an impression (as much as might think) you want to give people. It looks like they are putting on a show. And that isn't a feeling of respect. The best thing you can do for an interview is wear what feels natural. So you can give an impression of who you really are. Obviously, I haven't applied for many jobs, so I can't tell you that this is going to work for you. But, as a side note, I have gotten every job I have applied for!
More to the point, though, if _I_ am ever interviewing you, it is best to wear what you normally wear. Because I will be turned off if you wear a suit and actually respect you less and mistrust you. However, if you are the kind of person that wears a suit casually, well, then you are just tough out of luck. :)
Dread Pirate Benjamin
10 April 2007 06:24am UTC
I think it is unfortunate that both this post and my last comment make me seem like a big angry jerk. And though I am angry (about this) and might be a jerk, my motivation for saying these things is quite the opposite.
I hate pretentiousness. In fact if you look at my list of the top five evils (scroll down to B. Alan Thomas) it is number one. It does nothing but make people feel bad about themselves.
Boatswain The Fool
10 April 2007 03:12pm UTC
I hope you don't mind if I take another stab at responding. (In the end, I do agree with Mr. Peetie that it's a case "different Strokes.")
In 1), my point wasn't that this social tradition makes sense or that it really is more respectful to wear a suit to an interview, just that we as a society have put meaning onto wearing a suit and not eating until everyone has food, so there is a good chance that the other person will feel more respected if you do one of those things. It also probably depends on the situation. If you show up with a suit for an interview to work as a construction worker or for a small open-source startup, you might look ridiculous or pretentious or like a ninny. (Aside: I have a lot of experience looking like a ninny.) Again, it's a relatively arbitrary system, but the point is that it's up to the other person what she or he will find respectful, not up to you, so I won't wear a suit around you, but I might wear one when I meet old Johnny the Tailor. This last point also applies to your comment about my (2). You find it a hassle, so (knowing that) I wouldn't wait for you, but I am not at all convinced that such is the case for all other people.
Regarding (4), I'm a bit confused... I can't seem to find where in your post you discussed it.
Dread Pirate Benjamin
10 April 2007 04:38pm UTC
In response to your response to my number 1: I am saying that I feel it is actually disrespectful towards me for other people to expect that. Or for other people to have respect for me if I do those things. Because it isn't respecting me to expect me to do things that only inconvenience me or that make me behave or act in a manner that isn't natural for me.
In my post I said: "All you are saying is that you think I want you to just sit there and be hungry and let your food go cold." I meant to imply that no one actually feels that way. That no one would actually want their friend to sit there and be hungry and let their food go cold. Apparently I was wrong.
Finally, doing something just because that is the way other people do things or because it is a social tradition or because it is the way our culture operates is not reason enough to do something. If there is one thing you are going to know about me it is that I hate arbitrary rules of society. Like that girls have to be prim, proper and innocent. That guys aren't supposed to be emotional. Or that I am supposed to hold doors open for women, but to be a gentleman I don't have to hold them open for men. If there is anything that you are going to learn in life, it is that social tradition is not about respect, it's about playing a game. One that I refuse to play. What I will do is treat people as individuals (not as a gender or a race or a class) and treat them in the best manner I can. And I only wish people would forget what they have been told and start acting like that.
Peon Peetie is right, though. "Different strokes." However, if I don't wait to eat my food, I am being judged. Meaning people aren't actually living "different strokes." It would be wonderful if that was the way things were. And that is the point of this post. Don't expect me to (or think of me less if I don't) wait for you to get your food.
Completely in love with Benjamin
10 April 2007 07:17pm UTC
This is a trend of our generation. In the sociology department we love to talk about social norms, and while many of them can be oppresive and burdensome, I appreciate some. In a lot of ways, they are what hold communities together (I'm sitting in on social theory and can't help but think of things in sociological terms.) As far as the waiting to eat thing, I do wait to eat when I am with people my parents age and older in a formal setting. I think it is respectful, and maybe it's my southern background, but I think there's something to be said for being respectful of older generations...especially grandparents and their peers. I think it's nice. It doesn't matter to me with peers, though.Boatswain The Fool
10 April 2007 07:35pm UTC
Interesting points. And, I really like having this discussion with you online!
Regarding (1) : it is likely, or at least possible, that your reaction to things like wearing a suit is not in the norm. Granted, when someone comes in wearing a suit, I feel more nervous than anything else, definitely not respected, but I am sure that, given the tradition, somewhere someone is excitedly awaiting people to show up wearing suits and sit patiently while this someone waits for her or his food to arrive, and she or he considers it a sign of disrespect if they do not. But, it's up to you whether or not you want to behave for the happiness of these respect-hungry people. To clarify my point in number (1): I am not trying to make a point about how you feel, which I think that you make very clearly, just a point about how other people, at least in theory, feel and thus why these social traditions are perpetuated in the first place.
Regarding (4), I hope you don't think that I'll judge you for eating when I don't have my food, but I think that it's safe to say that hungry people are people who are less happy and more likely to snap at just about anything, so being as polite as possible to them might keep us in their good graces.
Now, we come to my real point of contention: I don't think that you're giving enough credit to arbitrary rules of society. Pretty much every rule of society of which I can think is, in some sense, arbitrary. The trend to go to college after high school, though perhaps good in its own right, is an arbitrary social rule. People do it just because That's What You Do. The social trend might exist for a reason (if we agree that education is worthwhile), but people do it for an arbitrary reason. At the same time, a social rule is really just a way of applying meaning to an action. Whereas normally waiting for food might not have any meaning, we've applied lots of meanings to it: respectful, stuffy, aggravating, &c. These meanings change depending on the context (eating with friends, eating at an interview, &c.). And, in the end, they are huge aids in how we communicate to each other. If I don't wear a suit at an interview, that is a message from me to the people who are interviewing me. If I say "hello" to you when we pass each other on the street, that is also a message, meaning something like "I consider us close enough for greetings, and I would like to not let that fall apart," or in another context "hello" (as opposed to "hey, buddy!") might mean "I'm angry with you." These are all arbitrary social rules for what you do in particular situations. My point is: a social rule is really just an agreed-upon meaning, so following social rules that involve other people is in some ways about communicating particular messages to those people.
Furthermore, social rules are really things that you can't avoid. There is a social rule that a rebel will not wear a suit to an interview. That message is: "I will not conform to your rules!" (even though it actually is conforming to rules, just different ones). If you say that you are not going to wait for someone else to get her or his food, there is no way for that to not send them a message. All actions in a social context apply to social rules. It just might be that your action is sending the message: "I want to act around you as if I were alone" or (more likely) "I want us to be as comfortable around each other as possible," but there is no way for it to not send a message.
Now, you listed a bunch of examples of bad social rules, or (to use the terminology that I have been using) social rules that send problematic messages, messages like "men should ignore their emotions." It's definitely, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate practice to work to change social messages, and one way of doing so is disassociating yourself from the actions associated with those rules (e.g., stop holding the door open for girls). But, you're never going to get rid of all arbitrary social rules, because all social actions adhere to social rules, and all social rules (as far as I can tell) are at least somewhat arbitrary. And, anyway, most people aren't going to sit around and think through the reasons behind acting in particular ways when there is an arbitrary social rule just waiting for them to follow. So, the trick is for you to pick the social rules that you think are worth following based on the meanings that they create and the messages that they send and follow those rules when and as you think it worthwhile. So, when you talk about the reasons that you don't wait for other people to get their food (e.g., it sends the message: "You who don't have food want me who has food to have to suffer and wait for you"), I think you are bringing up legitimate and interesting points. But, I hope that you don't give up on something (like wearing a suit) just because it's an arbitrary social rule. In the end, I argue, all you're doing is trading one social rule over another.
One final thing: I didn't really talk about this at all, but I think that it might be that your real concern is about judgment, not that arbitrary social rules exist, but that people judge other people in arbitrary ways based on them. And, I completely agree that if someone starts saying "Oh, that Benjamin! He's such a horrible human being!" because you don't wait for their food to arrive, you've every right to take offense and defend yourself.
Boatswain The Fool
10 April 2007 07:37pm UTC
Hmm... we apparently have someone who knows a whole lot more about this an I do... Completely In Love With Benjamin, I hope that my pop sociology (see above comment) isn't too ignorant. And, please let me know if it is!Dread Pirate Benjamin
10 April 2007 10:01pm UTC
I am glad that this discussion has continued as long as it has. It has given me a lot to think about. Let me try to once again clarify my original intent with this post.
Waiting to eat should not be a sign of respect.
There still has not been a good point made for why it is. I am trying to think about why it is. Why it came about. And my gut is just to say "because it's polite." So I really do feel that is why people do it. The best reason I can come up with is that it is more fair for every one to start eating at the same time. But food tastes better when it is served fresh, so that reason is a bad one.
But now that is besides the point. This discussion has drifted beyond that.
Liza, I agree completely. There is something to be said for being respectful of older generations. Now, I do have to admit that I have been a bit misleading, because when I am around older people or people I am unfamiliar with, I play by their rules. Just as when I go to other countries or other cultures, I abide by their rules. Because when you are in a culture or society or group that is different from your own, I think you are right, it is disrespectful to not abide by their rules.
But when I am in a place that is mine (e.g. my work, my home, my friends) I should be able to contribute to the social norms and have complaints with them.
Omer, you are very right that actions in a society have meaning. Yes, anything you do is conveying a message, and there is no way to avoid that. However, I don't think social rules necessarily exist to convey messages. I see social rules as patterns of social interaction. So in that sense, yes all social rules are arbitrary. I think a lot of people continue these patterns just because that is what people do. And I see no reason to perpetuate a pattern just because that is what people do. Why should I spend a lot of money on a suit and then dress up and wear an uncomfortable tie (I personally love wearing ties) just because that is what done? If I cannot see a benefit to me or other affected parties then why should I do it? Once you come to that conclusion I think it is mostly just a matter of picking your battles. For example, a rule of society is that you shake hands when you meet some one. I think this is of pretty much no merit (some people say you can judge a person based on their handshake, but that is another question). However, I am not going to complain about shaking hands because it really isn't much of an inconvenience and everyone does it. (And really, it isn't much of a pain to wait to eat, it is just a personal pet peeve.) But it is an inconvenience to buy a suit. Or some rules have negative effects on society, like holding the door open for _just_ women. But here is the crux of my point: when I say I don't like arbitrary rules of society, I mean I don't like them when they are obliging me. And if people tell me to do something just because that is the way things are done, I am not going to give it much thought to it.
And I am perfectly willing to accept the consequences of those conclusions. For example, I don't think I really want to work at a place that expects me to wear a suit. It is almost a filter of my own to decide if I am welcome in a place. If people put an importance on rule X,Y and Z that I don't like then maybe I need to meet some different people. It has worked pretty well so far.
I think a lot of people follow these rules out of pretentiousness. So they can be a "gentleman". And that's crap. Just care about people and be kind to them. That's the bottom line. I am not going to follow an expectation of society unless that is the motivation.
And yes, judgment has a lot to do with it. I mean it is the number two evil. :)
Boatswain The Fool
11 April 2007 02:13pm UTC
Actually, Benjamin, I believe in the end that we are agreeing on mostly everything. I would probably use different terminology (more about meanings and messages), but the content is just about in the same place. I guess I would only add two things: 1) as long as you don't do something for its social message, be aware that - because every action in society sends a message to the other people in that society - you might get some weird looks until you explain that you want to base your actions on their benefits outside of a social context (e.g., fresher food tastes better) and not on the messages that they send. 2) I'm still not convinced that actions based entirely on social convention are bad, or at least that the social message that an action sends is not worth thinking about when choosing what to do. The messages that social actions send can make the recipients and senders happy or be otherwise useful for communicating, and promoting happiness seems to me like a pretty solid reason to act in a particular way. At the same time, when those messages start causing you unhappiness (because of, say, pretentiousness or any kind of judgment), it is probably - at least - time to find a different crowd that interprets social messages differently. (But, honestly, every social group is in some way pretentious and judgmental of groups and people who don't share its values. What do you think would happen if I started sending messages that I don't like "Buffy," by - say - not coming anymore or by talking about how bad it is? Or if I started wearing jewelry and listening to heavy metal? Or putting a fish in my ear to "better understand people"? Liking "Buffy" is, in the end, just as arbitrary as liking to look spiffy in a suit with your rich buddies at the local gentleman's house, and getting angry at people who don't like "Buffy" is just as pretentious as getting angry at people who don't like wearing suits.)Dread Pirate Benjamin
11 April 2007 06:22pm UTC
Here let me rephrase. Actions based entirely on social conventions don't have any merit in and of themselves. They aren't necessarily bad, and they aren't necessarily good. They are okay to do, obviously, we all do them. But they aren't worth anything. Social conventions are no reason to limit yourself. Because they are only patterns. If someone tells me to do something that I don't want to do or not to do something I want to do, social conventions shouldn't have any baring on my decision. Note, that I am obviously not considering things that are harmful or disrespectful of others. Not doing those is just called kindness.
I have to admit that I am a little thrown by your examples of how social groups are pretentious and judgmental. You have in the past stopped coming to Buffy because you didn't like it and I don't think any one held themselves above you or judged you. I think people were sad that you weren't coming. If you started wearing jewelry I think people would make some jokes (good hearted ones) but that they would just chalk it up to you being the individual you are. I think if you start putting a fish in your ear people will become concerned about your health. And I am sure people will be just as supportive of your heavy metal affliction as they are of my rap interests, i.e, with a deep hatred of rap, but not of me (I hope). But none of this is pretentiousness or judgement.
I think there is a huge difference between not liking someone or being frustrated with people and being pretentious and holding yourself above them. Pretentiousness and judgement are not inherent in social groups. Though, I will admit prevalent. But that is exactly my complaint! People have a tendency to mistrust what is different. But that doesn't excuse them. I don't think your Buffy-people wearing suits example is actually pretentiousness, but more jack assness.
You will notice that I have never said "pretentiousness is bad-- except when I am doing it." No that is just as bad. Pretentiousness is bad, regardless of who is doing it.
And just to clear things up, I never get angry at people who don't like Buffy. I get angry at people who scoff at the thought of liking Buffy (pretentious bastards). Which has happened many times.
Completely in love with Benjamin
11 April 2007 06:42pm UTC
Such a good sociological discussion on norms! I love it. Social norms are inevitable. They are the way that we structure ourselves as groups and societies. Typically they are just the little things that you do or don't do to be able to socialize and most things that are "considerate" are so because they are based on some social norm or expectation. Without them, people would have a really difficult time interacting. I would guess that you get irritated with people when they aren't considerate in some way or another and this is you expecting someone to act in a particular way according to some norm. Everyone follows the rules of society daily, and we only notice certian ones, in this case because it seems inconvenient and irritating. These are the norms that change and adjust based on new generations and new ideologies. Feminism and the civil rights movement changed a bunch of norms and habits that were oppresive. So, the waiting to eat thing may be on its way out with our generation. Who knows. It started for some reason (it is theorized that manners began with the "leisure class" aka rich people, who had enough time to sit around and create meaningless rules to distinguish themselves from the lower classes) and exists as a sign of respect in some circles, but as long as you don't care about what those particular circles think of you, then more power to you. Social norms are useful as tools that help people socialize and since this one seems to not help you too much, it's lost its purpose.Boatswain The Fool
11 April 2007 07:36pm UTC
*nod* That's a good rephrasing. I guess, from my side, the rephrasing would be: the merit of social conventions is in the messages they send and the abilities of those messages to make people happy. Waiting for someone else's food as a convention can (at least) send the message "I respect you" and therefore can make another person happy. You're right, though, if a convention loses its ability to make people happy, or its message becomes unnecessary, it doesn't make sense to follow it just because it's a convention.
I was definitely unclear with my examples. Perhaps I should speak of myself. I am much more comfortable with people who like the same things that I do. If a person comes around with a different appearance or different habits, I won't laugh at them, but I am less likely to befriend them. I would argue that this fact about me is a form of pretension and even a form of judgment. It's not that I judge one person as better than another, but that I give out something (my time and attention) based on a person's characteristics, and I get frustrated (sometimes) based on a person's characteristics too. And, in the end, I think that certain characteristics are better than others. I don't respect the "getting trashed on weekends" characteristic; I think far less of it than the "watch 'Buffy' on Tuesdays" mentality.
Perhaps, then, we're just defining the words "pretension" and "judgment" differently. I would call my actions above a form of both pretension and judgment, maybe not as extreme as treating someone coldly because they don't wear a suit, but still of a similar kind. In the end, then, maybe the way to say things is that all groups (and all people) subscribe to my broader understanding of those words, but you get frustrated with groups and people who fit under the narrower understanding (in which pretension and judgment are limited to situations in which a person considers her or himself better than another based purely on social convention -- or do you have a better definition?). What do you think?
But, even if we go with your narrower definition. "Buffy" is still a bit of a problem. In the end, you're saying that you judge people because they judge "Buffy" not on the show's characteristics but because of its social standing as something of a silly show. (If I'm not correct in this rephrasing, please correct me!) And, I could similarly say that I judge people because they make judgments about other people behind their backs (one of my pet peeves). The problem is that we are still judging people... valid reason or no... and we are doing it based on social convention. You value openness to new experiences and not letting your image get in the way of your happiness (again, if I'm wrong, let me know), and I value giving people a chance to defend themselves. But, those are social values. We think that they're important, but they're really just values that we hold for our own reasons, whereas other people hold different value that have just as many reasons behind them (e.g., "Listen to what society and your friends have to say about something so as not to waste your time with it," or "Talk to your friends about everything [including how you feel about other people] so that you are always as honest as possible with them and so that they can make you feel better"). So, I think, there is no way to avoid the fact that, in the end, we think less of people or get frustrated with them based on our social values. We are, then, the two of us (to use your term), pretentious bastards. But, again, I think that you would be hard-pressed to find a person who or a group of people that didn't fall somewhere into pretension, and (in fact) I'm not planning on no longer judging people who talk about other people behind their backs because, as much as it's a social value that I hold for personal reasons, I still hold it quite assuredly.
I guess my point is that the people who you judge (by your narrower definition), as far as I can tell, are those who don't share some of the values that you hold most deeply, like individuality and openness to new experiences. (And, I, in turn, am the same way with different values.) And, by my broader definition, I personally think that you would spend less time with me if I entered Bling Mode and started asking that we put on heavy metal every time I was around, or if I had a fish wiggling in my ear... Or, better, you are less likely to spend time with someone who is, so to speak, Blinging it up or has a fish in their ear... Not that these are worse people, but they are different, so you don't devote as much time to them. And, I am the same way, which is why none of my friends have fish in their ears, and almost all of you share a lot of characteristics that I consider important.
How does that sound?
Boatswain The Fool
11 April 2007 07:57pm UTC
Ooo... I always seem to be post my comment before having checked for new ones, and I always seem to miss yours, Completely In Love With Benjamin. I think that you got what I was trying to say (about messages and meanings) much more concisely and clearly than I ever could. Awesome.HH-VD
12 April 2007 02:56am UTC
wow...this is a very long discussion. I just wanted to say that I am very excited about this b/c I have always struggled w/ doing things just b/c they are considered polite. Here is my example: I don't like it when someone asks you to pass something to them when you are eating...I would prefer the person reach across my plate instead of making me pass whatever it is...but there is this ridiculous rule that it is impolite to reach across the table/someone's plate. I was thinking about why people tend to wait until everyone has their food b4 eating...I think it comes from christianity and how you are supposed to pray b4 eating, so you have to wait until all the food is there so everyone can pray together. Also, I think shaking hands is a more intimate greeting than just saying hello...it involves physical contact which I think helps you remember someone. It is kind of like eye contact...it is really hard to remember someone when you avoid eye contact and don't shake hands or touch in any way. In that case it is like you are in a fog. So, I guess I'm saying shaking hands isn't a meaningless social norm that people do just b/c that is what you do. Well, I guess some people do it w/o even thinking about it, but I am very concious of what is happening when I shake someone's hand and say hello. I become aware of how awkward/comfortable the other person seems, and how interested they are in meeting me. (of course in some way these are my judgements) I also become aware of how awkward/comfortable I am. I think it would be better if people hugged when they met...you can also tell many things from the way someone hugs you.Peon Peetie
12 April 2007 06:40am UTC
i told myself long ago that i wouldn't get involved in this debate, as i am rather opinionated and at least a few others in this conversation are as well. but i can't help it now.
we've been calling them "social norms"-- perhaps with good reason, or perhaps not. call them what you will, but really, i see them as being rules. charlie kaufman once described rules as being more like guidelines. rather than being laws like gravity, they are things that people have tried and discovered work. especially in a science of evolution like sociology, their presence clearly shows that they have some merit and should not be disregarded, just as they shouldn't be blindly followed. benj, i appreciate and respect your drive to question these norms, specifically that of waiting to eat your food. however, this debate has since gone way beyond that particular example. it has evolved more into a debate of what respect is, what judgement is, and what is universal.
sure, some of these rules are arbitrary. but there is no way to tell for sure who else thinks they're arbitrary. perhaps some people think it is extremely disrespectful to eat before i have my food; others may think it's absurd (in many parts of china, for example, the food comes out at such different times it's unreasonable for anyone to be expected to wait). regardless of what you may think, though, you must accept that there is no universal. what it means to have respect, to show respect, to be respected, is far from universal. and perhaps it is just an evolution of rules the "leisure class" created to distinguish themselves from lowly peons. and if so, wouldn't you be honored to be considered elite by a peer? unless you are with people that you know well enough to understand which side they are on, i feel it is best to eire on the side of caution and accept these social norms. or at least feel it out.
for example: i understand, hh-vd, why you would find a handshake to be very important. i tend to agree-- my father always said you can tell a lot from a handshake. however, there are times when i just don't want to shake someone's hand. i will always shake a hand if it is offered. but because there are times when i don't want to, i must assume that others may feel that way as well. thus, i will try my best not to judge someone if they choose not to offer me their hand. likewise, if i get my food before someone else, i will wait because i can't know for sure if they'd like me to. if it'll be a long time or i'm starving, then i'll eat. but if i'm in no hurry, what's the rush? if i'm hungry and someone else is scarfing their food down, i'm usually a little jealous. i can only assume someone else may feel the same. likewise, i feel uncomfortable if i'm the only one eating at the table, so i'll wait. regardless, you can never know what people prefer, so i feel it's best to accept the social norms.
i understand that a few of you will disagree with me. i am not looking for a debate, as i know how opinionated i am and how opinionated others can be. i think the most important point that i'm trying to get across is that not everyone will agree on anything. whichever side you're on, to say that you would like someone less, judge someone, or have less respect for someone who does something that is considered socially to be a sign of respect (like wearing a suit to an interview, waiting to eat, or not reaching over someone's plate) is even worse than blindly following the rule. the golden rule only applies if you are unsure as to what the other would like you to do unto him. no one is the same, no one has the same feelings about everything, and there is no right answer.
and if you ever reach over my plate while i'm eating, i will pick up my plate and move to a different seat. if you want me to pass the salt and i'm eating, you can wait for ten seconds. but i do not like it when people invade my personal space.
Steve the Interloper
12 April 2007 08:20pm UTC
This problem could all be solved through better restaurant service. Just bring 'em all at the same time!
(Now to actually read these comments. There's a social norm I just violated: commenting before reading the whole thread.)
Steve the Interloper
13 April 2007 04:07am UTC
OK, it's 7.5 hours later and I have read all of the above. What an interesting discussion.
I'm interested in this statement by Benjamin:
As a message to your friends, this makes perfect sense. You are explaining your behavior and the reasons behind it, and now they can understand you better.
As a stance vis-a-vis the rest of the world, I don't buy this. It seems like wanting to have your cake and it eat, too (perhaps before everyone else is served). You simply can't say "I'm going to live by an alternate set of rules, and it is unfair of the world not to recognize that and make allowances for that."
Let's go back to the question of wearing a suit to a job interview. CC is a pretty casual place, but if I were to see a man interviewing for job as a professor or librarian or similar position and he wasn't wearing a jacket and tie, I'd assume that he wasn't very serious about the job. And--this is the key point to me--he doesn't get to choose how I react to him.
It's fine to flout conventions and norms, but the price of this kind of rebellion is rejection by the mainstream. Sometimes the rebellion and associated costs are small enough (eating before others are served) or the potential gains are big enough (civil disobedience for civil rights) that it's worth it.
The Anonymous Poppy
13 April 2007 04:08am UTC
Interloper, in my opinion, when the thread is this long and the comment is a quick one, there is no problem with leaving the comment. :)
You know, I was halfway through writing a comment when I realized that I feel too strongly on this topic to comment. And I actually agree with a lot of what has been said here, and disagree with little of it. My strong opinions are all about a somewhat related topic of social norms and respect: how guys treat girls on dates, how girls react to this, and how guys react to that. Or rather, how this commonly plays out among members of my religion.
Anyway, as soon as I typed the word "asshat" in my comment, I knew I felt too strongly and had to let the comment go.
I think what it boils down to is that I am pretty uncomfortable in my own skin, and this makes me both love and hate social norms. I like them, because I just have to learn them and then I have a basis for behavior. I may or may not choose to act in accordance with them, but knowing them makes me feel that, however I act, I act in knowledge and not in ignorance. I want to be able to make a conscious choice about it. But I hate them because they put me in terribly uncomfortable situations. For example, I hate walking into a room ahead of people. Who came up with that one?? When I went to the opera several weeks ago, the guy that I went with and I would generally walk side by side when we were walking around, but when for some reason we had to walk in line (say, when the path we took through a crowd narrowed or when we entered a room through a door) he instinctively stepped back so I could go first. As a hesitant and uncertain person in unfamiliar surroundings, I instinctively waited for him to lead me. We only came to a dead stop once or twice before I caught on and from then on I went ahead, but I couldn't help thinking "Can't he see how uncomfortable I am?"
Really, I don't have anything general to say, I think I just wanted to throw out that anecdote. Great discussion, though. :)
Dread Pirate Benjamin
13 April 2007 06:16am UTC
Omer: I agree that people are going to surround themselves with people who share similar values and interests as their own. But having different opinions from people, or not getting along, or not liking people is not being pretentious. It is a fact of life and not avoidable. However, making people feel bad or inferior about the choices they have made is avoidable. And I don't think it is pretentious of me to say that. It isn't pretentious of me to declare a value I hold. According to Google pretentious is defined as, "making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction." Pretentiousness has to do with how you present yourself to the world. How you treat others. I don't think sharing your values is pretentious. I don't think relating to and liking people who share those values is pretentious. I don't think not seeking out those that don't share your values is pretentious[1]. I do think trying to convince others of your importance, or to seem cooler, or better by what your values are (and of course, interests and actions) is pretentious. Pretentiousness has to do with creating impressions. Likewise, most social rules and conventions have to do with impressions.
It is a tricky situation when people's values clash. Most often people just have to agree to disagree. Like I think I and (apparently) most everyone that comes to my website will have to do.
Peter: I can pretty much safely say I don't want to ever be considered elite. Especially by a peer.
Steve: I really liked your joke about getting my cake and eating it! I think I just happen to be lucky that my casual wear (slacks, a button up shirt and a sweater) happen to barely pass as formal in most situations. In recent years, I don't think I have ever once felt under dressed for an occasion. But you are right, I can't choose how people react to me. I guess, (and this is where eternal optimism comes in) I just hope people will be able to see the me inside (and like what they see, too!).
Here are my concluding thoughts from this discussion: I think that the tone of my post and many of my comments (probably this one, too) has been much too preachy and stand off-ish to really gel with what I have been trying to say. Which is basically, be yourself, and don't let society get in the way.
I shouldn't be telling others how to feel or react. But I do think I am allowed to say how I wish they would. I guess I can only hope people will have a similar philosophy. And if not, then we probably won't get along too well. Its just that being quite the opinionated individual myself, I do tend to find myself put off by other people's acceptance of and expectations of my actions. I, perhaps unjustly, ask a lot of people: I think everyone is inherently good. Sometimes I feel let down. However, I am, for the most part, a pretty agreeable guy, so this really doesn't come up all that often.
And so, if you happen to be someone who fits in well in society, then more power to you!
[1]: That was a little convoluted...
Peon Peetie
21 March 2011 06:43am UTC
i love reading old posts!