One of the key ideas that I pondered during my post-E5 sabbatical was the ”Tall Dancer” phenomenon: Those who are “different” (in one sense or another, in a variety of contexts) are often perceived as inferior through incompatibilities rather than deficiencies—in fact, this is often the case even when they are rationally speaking superior.
(Below, I will use “tall dancer” to refer to an actual dancer who happens to be tall; “Tall Dancer” to refer to the metaphorical case.)
Consider the following situation: A dance class (or some other dance setting) has one unusually tall participant, with the rest being unusually short (assume e.g. a two foot difference in height); all participants have roughly the same skill and experience. The class pairs up and the tall dancer and his partner find that dancing with each other is awkward. If they are bright enough, they realize that the difference in height is the problem; if not, they each consider the other party an incompetent dancer. A re-pairing is made for the next dance, and the same thing happens again. This continues until everyone has danced with every member of the opposite sex.
At the end, many of the short dancers will be convinced that the tall dancer was incompetent—after all, dancing with everyone else was no problem. The tall dancer, in turn and depending on the exact circumstances, might be convinced that everyone around him is incompetent, might have realized that the height difference caused a compatibility issue, or might incorrectly have started to doubt his own ability.
The interesting issue: If the circumstances were the reverse (one short dancer, and many tall) then it would be the short dancer who was considered incompetent. I cannot stress the importance and benefits of this realization in the majority enough—although I do not count on its appearance anytime soon.
On the contrary, it is very common to read claims (concerning e.g. social skills) that the members of one group are simply born with certain skills (say, empathy, “knowing how to handle people”, charisma), while another group is not—and that the members of the latter are only able to “compensate” by hard work or not at all. This is usually due to the kind misapprehension this article discusses: The respective groups are just tuned in to be compatible with those in the same group, one group is significantly larger, and the members of that group ignorantly or self-gratifyingly consider the members of the other group deficient—without realizing that the tables would turn, were the proportions reversed.
In the particular case of dancers, the height issue is sufficiently obvious that most will come to the right conclusion; however, in a generic situation this will not be the case: The height difference is visible; a difference in e.g. personality type, cultural background, experience level, ..., will typically not be visible. In fact, often the reverse happens, and an obvious, but irrelevant, difference is attributed instead of the true, underlying reason. (Consider e.g. the ascription of cultural differences to race.)
The phenomenon comes into being through a mixture of (at least) two factors:
Humans (including those who are rational and intelligent) tend to unconsciously make judgments based on their own positions, experiences, and opinions. In particular, they tend to assume that others think and feel in a similar manner, have similar priorities and needs, ... It is also common for humans to (re-)interpret events and circumstances so that they, themselves, “look good”.
The majority rules. In some cases this must be altered to e.g. “the faction that makes the most noise (or similar) rules”, making things even harder for groups like introverts (who tend not to make much noise) and rational humans (who try to solve problems, instead of complaining about them to others). Other complications include e.g. ability to garner sympathy and having better access to media channels.
In light of my later extensive readings and writings on politics, including ideas like “Overton windows” and Leftist attempts to manipulate them, this part could be scary. (More on this at a later time, when said writings have been integrated on this site instead of my old Wordpress bloge.)
One of the most obvious examples is a lone man in a group of women, respectively a lone woman in a group of men—including cases where the group discusses an individual without his presence, and where a small group is contained in a larger group.
Other easy to understand cases include differences in age, level of education, cultural norms, etc. Even so simple things as table manners can vary greatly from one culture to another: Consider burping in various cultures, or even knife-and-fork use in the US vs. England—what is perfectly acceptable, or even preferred, in one context can be rudeness in another, and vice versa. (An interesting case in pointw.) A common trap is customs and procedures local to different organisations: Often a new-comer stumbles because his new employer simply does certain things in another manner than the old employer—and might end up looking bad, if his new colleagues and bosses are not aware of such issues.
Often overlooked, but highly important examples, include introverted vs. extraverted, rational vs. emotional, those who can learn on their own vs. those who need instruction, etc. Notably, in these examples, a strong case can be made for the former being superior, but at least extraverts are often considered superior, or introverts somehow flawed, in the “accepted wisdom” of that majority. The other two cases do not have such a strongly mistaken view, but it is not uncommon for the emotional to be blind to their own weaknesses and (usually highly incorrectly) denounce the rational as e.g. “lacking empathy” or being “cold-hearted”, while those who need instruction to learn often have problems understanding that others do not—and many take an extremely misguided view that only learning-by-instruction would be proper learning.
It is noteworthy that an individual can go from perpetrator to victim (and vice versa) in matter of minutes, just by landing in a new group. Further, that more or less everyone will be on both the receiving and the giving end every now and then.
Many consider certain minority groups victims of a disorder, deficient in some regard, or down-right “freaky”, without reflecting on other possibilities—while the minority group is severely annoyed over this attitude, and often considers the majority the ones to have lost out.
I use “minority” in its generic sense—not in the narrowing to imply e.g. “ethnic minority”. While members of ethnic minorities might often be Tall Dancers, the phenomenon is much more general.
Moreover, in any given case, it can pay to ask whether some behavior by, say, a Turk contrasted with the majority specifically because he was a Turk among non-Turks or e.g. because he was an introvert among extraverts (cf. below)—we are all members of infinitely many groups. (And while group membership might make it easier to explain the “Tall Dancer” idea, it is very secondary to that idea.)
I particularly stress the importance of not engaging in “identity politics”, seeing any single group membership (be it ethnic or otherwise) as defining the individual, etc. Not only does such naive approaches entirely miss the point of this text, but they are bad policy in general, unfair to the individual, de-humanizing, and potentially highly destructive when allowed to influence political decision-making. (Witness the extremes of the current U.S. Left or note how much Marxist hate-mongering has been based on making group/class/whatnot membership the central criterion for judging the individual.)
Consider e.g. the introverts vs. extraverts issue: It is quite common for extraverts (although I am not certain that it applies to most of them) to see introverts as persons who are unhappy, unable to find friends, or in need of help to have an active social life—sometimes in combination with the very incorrect idea that introversion and shyness would be the same thing. Introverts typically have a very different take: “Why spend Friday evening getting drunk on over-expensive liquor in an over-crowded and overly loud bar? Besides, the last Stargate season was just released on DVD.” An educating take on Autismw can be found on http://isnt.autistics.org/e, which makes a similar point very well—and also illustrates many of the problems that the “NT” majority brings to this world. (I am reasonable well-read in issues relating to autism and Aspergerw, and can vouch that the opinions presented on the above website are very common among the “sufferers”.)
Interest-based divisions give a great family of examples, including the type of “jock vs. nerd” division so common in high-school fiction. There are a great variety of interests that seem perfectly natural to the one but might be absurd (boring, pointless, too expensive, too sweaty, too dangerous, whatnot) to the other. Taken one-on-one, there is no issue, but put a base jumper among philatelists or vice versa, and a Tall Dancer might manifest. (Note that “might” is the correct word: Any given group might vary in opinions, attitudes, and tolerance for those seen as kooky. There might even be some rare specimen who is both a base jumper and a philatelist.) To boot, such interest divisions can be fine-grained, in that those interested in music might have strong preferences for/antipathies against certain genres, that someone interested in sports might find baseball fascinating (resp. incomprehensible) and view long-distance running as pointless (resp. exciting), etc.
Such clashes can be particularly problematic when they occur in a more-or-less fix and important group, notably a family. Consider a child interested in studies growing up in a family of stereotypical jocks or vice versa. (Ditto, looking at the previous heading, an introverted child in an otherwise extraverted family group or vice versa.)
The following joke is a good illustration of how different persons can have very different priorities.
A doctor, a lawyer and a mathematician were discussing the relative merits of having a wife or a mistress.
The lawyer says: "For sure a mistress is better. If you have a wife and want a divorce, it causes all sorts of legal problems.
The doctor says: "It’s better to have a wife because the sense of security lowers your stress and is good for your health.
The mathematician says: " You’re both wrong. It’s best to have both so that when the wife thinks you’re with the mistress and the mistress thinks you’re with your wife — you can do some mathematics.
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/6.htmle)
A very striking, if fictional, example of how this can work is the Addams familyw: On the one hand, they are considered complete and utter freaks by most “normals”; on the other, they are extremely happy, get along with each in an extraordinary manner, and Gomes, at least and in his own way, is a great idealist and a sometime philanthropist. Off the top of my head, I can think of no other family, be it in real life or fiction, which is so loving and internally well-adjusted. Certainly, from their POV, it is the rest of the world which is turned on its head.
At the time of original writing, I had not yet encountered The Munstersw. Similar statements do apply, but I suspect, without having made a detailed comparison, that the Munsters fall slightly short in terms of happiness and harmony through the more uneven temperament of Herman (compared to Gomes). Then there is the unfortunate Marilyn and her tragic disfigurement, which has no equivalent among the Addamses.
Compare this to the eternal inner strife and family problems on Bewitchedw, or the volatile (and often near lethal) relationship of Jeanniew and Major Nelson (to mention two niche competitors). How about the apparent American dream family in American Beautyw, which was, in fact, an American nightmare? Even the supposedly ideal family of the Huxtablesw looks malfunctioning in comparison to the Addams family.
An interesting special case is emotional intelligencew, in particular in its more populist and commercial variations: There is much good to be said about e.g. knowing and understanding one’s own emotions, the emotions of others, whatnot; however, EI and EQ tend to be distorted into having empathy, having a behaviour conforming to the majority, etc. In effect, a high EQ score is often awarded, or a high EI ascribed, because someone happens to be of the “right” size for a particular dance group—not because of actual skill. I note that those that I have known personally who have been esteemed-by-others in this regard have often, IMO, lacked in central areas, like maturity, impartiality, ability to handle own emotions, resistance to emotional manipulation by others, ...
From my own readings, I have a very strong impression that even Golemanw, himself, has been more interested in selling books and seminars than in actually constructing and spreading a valuable theory.
A particular danger here: The promotion of EQ can cause a vicious circle or self-fulfilling prophecy, where a certain metaphorical height is made the gold standard for no other reason than that it is the most common, that measures of ability to dance are made to include height, and that those of the right height are given preference (even before an actual dance test). The pool of dancers, then, becomes more and more centered on a given height and grows more and more incompatible with those taller or shorter—and EQ seems to be validated. Once EQ seems to be validated, it is used the more often, worsening the problem, making EQ seem even better, etc. Notably, Goleman’s own writings contain the circular argument that because those with high EQs tend to do well in their careers, companies should deliberately strive to promote those with high EQs—completely ignoring that the ability to get a promotion to a position is not the same as the ability to do a good job in that position, but often has only a weak or even negative correlation with it. If anything, EQ is more likely to be a confounding factor, and those seen as high-EQ should possibly be given minus-points when it comes to promotions, in order to reduce the confounding effect. This is made worse by his tendency to reason in reverse, by not defining EI/EQ and see were it leads, but to grab factors that have a positive career effect and then define EQ to be the sum of those factors.
I have later repeatedly seen claims that EQ tests effectively test for extraversion or a particular personality type. This amounts to begging the question in the manner described above. Cf. e.g. http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=20320e.
Apart from the direct problems with perception, there are also many cases were implicit assumptions of how this or that should be done, what is “normal”, or similar, cause problems. Obviously, if someone points out that he has a different opinion, he risks the full problems of a Tall Dancer, but is unlikely to receive any benefits. To illustrate how narrow-minded and idiotic humans can be: A previous landlord of mine noticed that I used what he had intended as the living room as my bed room, and the intended bed room as my living room, became visibly angered, and explicitly complained about my arrangements!
To take a specific example of how this can affect those deviating from the average and how society as a whole might suffer a disadvantage:
A more or less Germany-wide problem, in my experiences so far, is that residents are assumed to be at sleep under heavy, thick comforters during the night (be it in mid-summer or mid-winter)—and that even in mid-winter, even on the rare nights where the temperature goes down towards -10 C, the central heating is turned off for a sizable part of the night. Needless to say, for someone like me, who do not care much about night and day, but more about what I currently am doing, this is an actual problem, because (at least when not working for someone else) a significant part of my waking hours tend to fall in the night-time. Right now (a few nights before Christmas 2009) my apartment is at least nippy, and my hands are decidedly cold—if I had not closed off the hallway, with its poorly insulated door to an icy stairwell, the temperature would have been intolerably low.
Even when I sleep during the night, this is far from optimal: If I use a comforter, without first manually turning all the radiators off, I am uncomfortably warm and sweaty until the central heating is turned off; if I use the thinner sheets that I am used to, I risk waking up in the middle of the night from being too chilly—or can wake up with a cold in the morning.
Notably, the average Germans also have disadvantages, most notably by waking up to a cold bed room, bath room, and kitchen, which certainly makes the mornings before work less appealing. Further, in these days of fewer house-wives, the central heating is now happily burning everyone’s money during the day—while most apartments stand empty...
Compromises and work-arounds can be found over time; however, these are by necessity sub-optimal. Assume, instead, that tradition and presuppositions were thrown out, and the tenants allowed to decide for themselves: The central heating is on during the night, those tenants who want the temperature to drop throughout the night can turn off or lower the heating manually, those who prefer an even and comfortable temperature do nothing.
Note that the environmental difference might be smaller than it seems. Firstly, with a lesser nightly load than during the evening, the central heating will draw less energy than during the evening, even when left on. (And with an electric heating, we might also draw on a nightly electricity surplus that would otherwise be wasted.) Secondly, much of the gain that might have taken place throughout the night with the central heating off will be lost again in order to bring the temperature up in the morning. Thirdly, this system might lead to a greater willingness to alter thermostat and radiator settings, which could have a positive effect on the daytime waste. (And, likely, the daytime waste is the bigger issue to begin with. Indeed, keeping the heating on in the night and turning it off during the day would, in many constellations, have been more rational to begin with.)
Similar statements apply to more or less everything, if one looks sufficiently deeply beneath the surface: If a majority (often even a plurality) has a certain preference, shows a certain behaviour, adheres to a certain custom, then those who deviate will experience disadvantages of various kinds and severities: There are many who do not always sleep during the night, for a variety of reasons, e.g that they have an unusual work schedule; there are many who are blind; there are many who are allergic to fish; there are many who have their moods ruined after being force-fed twenty minutes of third-rate music in a store, no matter how popular it is with teenage girls; ...
Come 2023, I have spent a few years without heating, at all, and so far (!) this has worked surprisingly well. The key to this, however, is a consistent switch of habits that apply regardless of time of day, including to consistently dress warmly. (As my grand-mother used to say when I was a child and complained about her house being too cold: Put on a sweater and stop whining.)
A significant difference to the above experiences is that consistency. Even during a cold spell, I do not see that much difference between day and night (indoor) temperatures; the typical German apartment, in contrast, would be warm and cosy during the day and chilly in the night. Back then, I would have needed to dress more warmly during a working night than a working day, possibly to the point of changing clothes when some particular time of the evening came and the central heating was turned off; now, I consistently dress warmly. The problem of how to handle comforters and radiators when going to sleep is gone. Etc. Moreover, there is the issue of own acclimatisation: it is easier to acclimatize to a constantly low-ish temperature than to one that moves up and down between low-ish and high-ish, which makes the lower temperatures easier to handle.
My adaptions do include the increased use of comforters, showing that this, as use of heating, to a large part is something habitual and changeable. Generally, it can pay to differ between that which is comparatively easy to change (the metaphorical equivalent of learning a new dance) and that which is hard or impossible to change (the metaphorical equivalent of height).
Be aware of the possibility of differences of this kind, and make judgments based on rational criteria—not “the majority rules”.
If you realize that you are a victim, do not be content with blaming the other party. Even if its members are capital idiots (which might or might not be the case), doing so will accomplish nothing. Instead try to adapt: A Tall Dancer who is aware that height is an issue can learn to compensate. (Which is not to say that one should fold over and accept any kind of idiocy; however, taking too firm a stand will often lead to an uprootinge. Beware that the stronger the idiocy, the stronger the wind.)
Communicating that a Tall Dancer situation is underway can be a good idea with the sufficiently open-minded; however, most are not open minded, and I suspect a high risk of backfire: “Not only is he incompetent, but he makes excuses too.”
Conversely, if you detect someone else in a Tall Dancer situation, there is a good chance that approaching him would help. Many of them are ignorant of the problem, or puzzled by the behaviours of others. A few friendly pointers can help them; and many of them will be willing to try to adapt, should this be necessary.
Try to detect situations where you continually land in a Tall Dancer position. In my case, e.g., examples include introverts vs. extraverts, the highly intelligent vs. those of average intelligence, those interested in content vs. those fascinated by covers, long-term thinkers vs. here-and-now persons, communicators vs. bonders/small talkers, ...
Be wary of changes in groups. Many of my problems at E4, e.g., were founded in a three-fold change of settings: Up till then, female colleagues had been rare (possibly 10 %, not counting receptionists and similar); most colleagues had a background in computer science, math, physics, or another hard subject; and the competence level at my previous employer had been unusually high. At E4, OTOH, I spent more than half my “interaction time” dealing with women; almost everyone I dealt with had a business background; and competence levels were abysmal.
Think of different groups (e.g. introverts/extraverts, engineers/business graduates, men/women) in the same way as e.g. British/Germans or Canadians/Japanese (or similar): There is a plethora of guides to help with business dealings with foreigners, including customs, etiquette, whatnot—the lack of similar books for different groups within the same country severely understates the differences.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.
Home
Cognitive bias and impression
The 48 Laws of Power
Explanations for the low correlation between intelligence and success
Thoughts on humans, animals, and what traits are ``more evolved''
Issues relating to education
Musings on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Natural law and human preference
Job application paradoxes
Collection of tidbits
WordPress posts (archive 1)
Sitemap