Read on Twitter
Reasons why people might get mad at you for decoupling: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7cAsBPGh98pGyrhz9/decoupling-vs-contextualising-norms
1) What your saying may have an implied action attached, and the implied action may be the wrong action.
Example: Blue-eyed people have better GRE scores (unspken but implied: so we should hire a blue-eyed person)
Example: Blue-eyed people have better GRE scores (unspken but implied: so we should hire a blue-eyed person)
2) What you're saying may have an implied but false causal mechanism, so by saying an accurate fact you are causing your audience to have a less accurate understanding of the world.
Example: Blue-eyed people have better GRE scores (because blue eyes make you inherently smarter)
Example: Blue-eyed people have better GRE scores (because blue eyes make you inherently smarter)
3) What you're saying may be true but would inspire others to take action that would hurt people.
Example: Donald Trump's home address is _____ and his security changes shift at 11pm.
Example: Donald Trump's home address is _____ and his security changes shift at 11pm.
4) What you're saying might be true but irrelevant to the conversation, so people are annoyed at you for being social incompetent.
Stacey: I have such bad cramps this month.
Aaron: 1% of the population has a headache at any given time.
Stacey: wtf??
Stacey: I have such bad cramps this month.
Aaron: 1% of the population has a headache at any given time.
Stacey: wtf??
5) What you're saying might be true, but it signals an affiliation with a group of people your interlocutor dislikes.
Example: Blue-eyed people have better GRE scores (which shows I vote for X)
(I think people jump to this explanation too quickly, but it really does happen!)
Example: Blue-eyed people have better GRE scores (which shows I vote for X)
(I think people jump to this explanation too quickly, but it really does happen!)
6) The fact you want to discuss causes your interlocutor emotional distress, and you haven't acknowledged the cost, explained why the conversation might be worthwhile, and given them an opportunity to avoid the discussion.
7) The fact you want to discuss was popularized by a person with mostly-harmful ideas, and your interlocutors don't want that person to become more popular because it'll lead to their bad ideas being more widely known.
Example: "[villain] had this amazing productivity system..."
Example: "[villain] had this amazing productivity system..."
8) The hypothetical question you want to discuss is based on an untrue premise.
Example: "If there were a genetic link between blue eyes and intelligence, should we require all Prime Ministers to have blue eyes?" (There's definitively not a link, so your interlocutor gets mad.)
Example: "If there were a genetic link between blue eyes and intelligence, should we require all Prime Ministers to have blue eyes?" (There's definitively not a link, so your interlocutor gets mad.)
9) The person you're talking to follows a deontological-type ethical system, and so follows a set of rules for good conversation, and you're breaking those rules.
Mike: And that's why I pray.
Nancy: A study showed that prayer has similar benefits to other meditation!
Mike:
Mike: And that's why I pray.
Nancy: A study showed that prayer has similar benefits to other meditation!
Mike:
10) Your statement is aesthetically or culturally displeasing. The person doesn't know why, but your sentence just made everything about the conversation less fun, cultured and classy.
BONUS: pseudo-contextualiser
Your interlocutor knows that you're wrong but thinks arguing with you would be exhausting, so instead appeals to contextualizing norms.
Mo: People with blue eyes are better at math.
Anu: Please don't generalise (meaning: Mo's ignorance is tiring)
Your interlocutor knows that you're wrong but thinks arguing with you would be exhausting, so instead appeals to contextualizing norms.
Mo: People with blue eyes are better at math.
Anu: Please don't generalise (meaning: Mo's ignorance is tiring)
