But it really is quite common in my experience.

The best argument you have, from your experience, is that you often feign surprise, which I find a bit damning, if you then ascribe that behavior to others. I can't remember feigning surprise, but I definitely remember being horrified at being forced to argue about something rather elementary. If it doesn't affect me directly, I'm more likely to simply ignore the person's argument and go my way.

edit: to be clear I get no satisfaction in seeing other people make obvious mistakes... it's almost physically painful.

I don't confess to feigning surprise in my comment. I believe it is very common, purely from observation of others - especially children and young adults.

It changed after I saw the XKCD "Ten thousand" comic, which changed my worldview for the better.

1. How can it be feigning/pretend? Perhaps it's not a habit one wishes to cultivate, but it's not fake.

2. How can we hold people morally responsible for it? It seems ill-advised to judge people for behaviors outside of their conscious control.

After more reflection, I find my disagreement with the original post has increased. As I said originally, I think it's wrong to feign a reaction when others expect sincerity. If anything, the post pushes people to conceal their genuine reaction and consciously feign lack-of-surprise. I would much rather help people avoid misinterpreting a sincere response than compel people to conceal their sincere beliefs.

Just because a person has said "uh" to fill pauses in speech so often that it feels like it comes without thought doesn't mean it's a behavior outside of their concious control...it just means it's going to take some practice to stop doing it. And that's probably a good analogy because you seem to be reading some persecuting motives here. "Here's an easy viewpoint shift that, with practice, can help you be less alienating/condescending to some people" is not at all equivalent to "you're a bad person for this thing you have no control over".

> Such behaviours have strong roots in childhood and often a rational adult who has it brought to their attention will easily be able to never do it again

lol! no.

I do agree that this rule is encouraging people to be ever-self-conscious and overrule their social reflexes and would be more accurately called "repress surprise".

I love Recurse, but the social rules are like padded corners for folks who need help that Recurse isn't equipped to provide, not something to take life lessons from. Every good team has junior folks who, by comparison, really simply just don't know jack shit about technology. Every single person came into this world without knowing anything and they need to feel like they belong as much as folks with 40 years of experience fiddling bits.

The root issue here is folks coming out of psychologically traumatizing competitive conditioning. You don't see any montessori kids complaining about anyone being surprised they're doing something without knowing a prerequisite.

feign |fān| verb [with object] — pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury): she feigned nervousness.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'that's not what the word means'. You said 'reflexive feigned surprise' is 'sociopathic'. Reflexively representing some emotional state other than the one you exactly feel is a basic aspect of the way we behave and communicate. When someone's ability to do that is impaired, it's considered a handicap.

> you can feign surprise at someone's ignorance not because you're really surprised but to berate them

On point! The rule should then be "don't berate others", or the more positive "empower others". This is just one example of this rule, one that I have not personally seen come up often, but perhaps that's because I have exactly 0 interest in being around anyone who berates others.

This isn't about insincerity, it's simply a basic aspect of social behaviour. You don't sit on the bus crying or singing a happy song if you're sad or happy. We manage the emotions we project as second nature, just as we read and interpret the projected emotions of others. It's the opposite of sociopathic.

The rule should then be "don't berate others"

No, because the rule is about a specific (potentially) reflexive behaviour that can be destructive in the context they're talking about. They are trying to help people address it. "Don't berate others" is a fine sentiment but a little vague.

This would make sense if we were making an exhaustive list of "potentially reflexive behavior which people may engage in but should not in this community", but keeping such a list in your mind is one hell of a downer. The best rule to encompass this, I think, is "epower those around you". Noisebridge has an even broader social rule / ethos which has served them well: "be awesome to each other".

Love the community at Recurse, but having social rules be a list of shitty things someone once did is the least awesome part of Recurse :-)

Why would that make sense? It makes sense to point out common ones. Especially if you are, presumably like the people at Recurse are, informed by the experience of running that type of learning environment. They aren't trying to be exhaustive or all-encompassing or even a downer. They're trying to deal with problems they've encountered, not writing a formal system of acceptable behaviour.

I don't think this works, because a lot of noobs leave before the skin-thickening process finishes or even before they learn that they're supposed to grow a thicker skin.

Eliezer Yudkowsky expresses that aspect of expression well:

"The principle extends beyond physics. Have you ever caught yourself saying something like, "I just don't understand how a PhD physicist can believe in astrology?" Well, if you literally don't understand, this indicates a problem with your model of human psychology. Perhaps you are indignant - you wish to express strong moral disapproval. But if you literally don't understand, then your indignation is stopping you from coming to terms with reality. It shouldn't be hard to imagine how a PhD physicist ends up believing in astrology. People compartmentalize, enough said."

http://lesswrong.com/lw/hs/think_like_reality/

My mom doesn't express indignation so much as she expresses surprise. She is hyper intelligent, but prefers to use surprise to talk about things in a certain way.

Me: "A majority of college educated people in the Red States voted for Trump."

My mom, surprised: "But how could they vote for Trump when they have such good educations?"

Me: "From 1860 to 2008 the majority of all college educated people voted for the Republican candidate. It is normal for college educated people to vote for the Republican candidate. 2008 was the first year the pattern was broken."

We've had exactly this same conversation many times before, so she's not really surprised by the information. But she feigns surprise as a stylistic choice. It's the personal manner in which she is most comfortable expressing herself.

Likewise: Southerns who grew up watching televsion no longer speak with Southern accents. I introduce a friend to my mom and mom says "She doesn't sound Southern at all!" My mom is aware that the South has changed since the 1950s, but my mom prefers to feign surprise over this issue, every single time.

He seems not to understand that people don't always speak literally.

I mean, I bet he does understand that, but he is feigning the misunderstanding because it is convenient to the point he is making.

Orbicularis oculi.