A while back I wrote an article about my dad, who died several years ago. As many as several people liked it a lot; as a result, I ended up having several conversations about the article itself on a meta-level. People were interested to know about the process of writing an article like that - what it felt like, what effect it had on me, etc.
I think this is a good distinction you're making here, and I think I have a recent-ish example that's applicable:
I was watching the third season of ATLANTA recently (a few months after its release), and in one of the episodes, Liam Neeson has a cameo as himself. He talks about that interview he gave a few years ago, where he says, as a younger man, a friend of his was raped by a black man, and for a long time he felt a hatred towards black men as a result. THAT, I think, is a perfect example of the kind of "vulnerability" you're talking about.
Sure, he was saying "I was angry and it was wrong and I'm not like this now," (paraphrasing) but he had and has a lot to lose, and the response was not all positive, and he gained nothing from voicing this other than unburdening himself. He made himself genuinely vulnerable.
In this case he wasn't expressing something universal, but often people making themselves vulnerable are saying, out loud, something that others have experienced some version of. And in that moment we can either appreciate it for its didactic quality, or we can moralize and pretend we've never had irrational or unreasonable fear or hatred of something different. Because the only counterevidence is in our heads, nobody can prove us wrong, and we can safely boo the person with our own souls the only witness to our hypocrisy.
“How many people, lacking elegant phrasing, face even greater risks from honest vulnerability?”
This is something that troubles me a lot about our current speech norms. In many workplaces a large majority of staff lack the verbal dexterity to make important but difficult points on contested issues. If they don’t phrase it just right, they’re cancelled.
The chilling effect is huge and it’s not limited to people with average intelligence or low status jobs either. In many highly influential companies and government agencies a large chunk of the workforce is made up of semi-awkward shape rotator types or immigrants speaking English as a second language. Being vulnerable in the sense you describe must be terrifying for them.
"There’s a certain number of women who are reading this that are slightly hurt or offended that I think this way (whether I take steps to “fix it” or not), and they aren’t wrong to feel that way. It is, as the kids say, a bad look."
We aren't wrong to feel it, to be sure. In true irony, it took me a bit to come to this conclusion because of the very issue you're discussing in the above-quoted. As the kids say, the struggle is real.
That said, I would personally know rather than not, and be given the respect and space as a fellow human being to make the decision to trust you going forward. I'm grateful on a meta-level that my own reaction to your commentary on possible reactions was instructive to my self.
The writer/public-thinker is most vulnerable when they combine a meditation on a conventionally held belief with statistics that suggest that the belief in question may be wrong-headed, or just plain wrong.
Speculatively violating people's opinions on things using just your own opinionated reasoning is one form of vulnerability-mongering; but offering not just the suggestion, but perhaps proof, that someone's opinion is founded on error or falsehood is another kind of ballsy altogether, especially if the erroneous opinion in question is sentimentally beloved or widespread.
As an example of real vulnerability, consider Scott Aaronson's posting about his interactions with women, and the absolute roasting he got from internet women. (Scott Alexander had a lengthy post about it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/
I agree with your point that people should be free to talk about their experiences, hoping to be helpful, without worrying it makes them look bad.
Regarding the word vulnerable. About 4 decades ago someone said I was vulnerable, and I had no idea what they were talking about. Now I see they must have ment "open and honest about ones feelings". So this is not a very new usage. It seems okay to use vulnerable this way, remembering that sometimes a word has 2 or more very different meanings. I do not know of another word that means "open and honest about ones feelings", and with positive connotations. We can probably keep using vulnerable to mean "open to attack", without creating too much confusion, and without being told "that is not what vulnerable means". Even if we have to stop this usage it seems okay because we can just say something like "open to attack" instead.
I’m having trouble with your argument about the fellow who is writing a confessional with the intention of making it public. There is a very legitimate and concrete threat to be considered. In other words it is not rational to remain vulnerable when it’s really not in your interest ( The word interest in this sense is very broadly defined). Some would call this man foolhardy.
Some would call him brave but foolhardy.
Some will use this man as a scapegoat.
I think a person can be vulnerable only in so far as they are able to make a distinction between a real threat and an imagined one. So I try to focus on really listening to other people.
I enjoyed this piece and think you make a good point about what "being vulnerable" actually means. It is used interchangeably with "sharing something personal," which as you point out can be protection-seeking rather than risk-taking behavior depending on the context! And, it is interesting to note that the context can be more important than the content shared. This observation, taken together with the fact that most people are protection-seeking rather than risk-taking most of the time, suggests a mechanism by which the internet creates bubbles.
Side note: the FDA seems to be charting a course for the worst of all worlds: painfully slow *and* trust-eroding; if they don't care about staying above the political fray, the least they could do is be expeditious about it.
I liked this one. Another downside to praising vulnerability in this sense is it makes people want to talk about bad life experiences, and that’s okay sometimes but a norm that praises talking about bad stuff probably isn’t good.
Fake Vulnerability, Risk Aversion and You
I think this is a good distinction you're making here, and I think I have a recent-ish example that's applicable:
I was watching the third season of ATLANTA recently (a few months after its release), and in one of the episodes, Liam Neeson has a cameo as himself. He talks about that interview he gave a few years ago, where he says, as a younger man, a friend of his was raped by a black man, and for a long time he felt a hatred towards black men as a result. THAT, I think, is a perfect example of the kind of "vulnerability" you're talking about.
Sure, he was saying "I was angry and it was wrong and I'm not like this now," (paraphrasing) but he had and has a lot to lose, and the response was not all positive, and he gained nothing from voicing this other than unburdening himself. He made himself genuinely vulnerable.
In this case he wasn't expressing something universal, but often people making themselves vulnerable are saying, out loud, something that others have experienced some version of. And in that moment we can either appreciate it for its didactic quality, or we can moralize and pretend we've never had irrational or unreasonable fear or hatred of something different. Because the only counterevidence is in our heads, nobody can prove us wrong, and we can safely boo the person with our own souls the only witness to our hypocrisy.
An interesting note here is that anonymous sub communities that can be used as safe speces to be vulnerable in certain areas do exist.
But they still don't allow vulnerability on every subject, which leads to a weird echo chamber effect with, sometimes, nasty consequences.
“How many people, lacking elegant phrasing, face even greater risks from honest vulnerability?”
This is something that troubles me a lot about our current speech norms. In many workplaces a large majority of staff lack the verbal dexterity to make important but difficult points on contested issues. If they don’t phrase it just right, they’re cancelled.
The chilling effect is huge and it’s not limited to people with average intelligence or low status jobs either. In many highly influential companies and government agencies a large chunk of the workforce is made up of semi-awkward shape rotator types or immigrants speaking English as a second language. Being vulnerable in the sense you describe must be terrifying for them.
I can confirm I am indeed "tired of the political stuff" - not just from you, but in LIFE.
"There’s a certain number of women who are reading this that are slightly hurt or offended that I think this way (whether I take steps to “fix it” or not), and they aren’t wrong to feel that way. It is, as the kids say, a bad look."
We aren't wrong to feel it, to be sure. In true irony, it took me a bit to come to this conclusion because of the very issue you're discussing in the above-quoted. As the kids say, the struggle is real.
That said, I would personally know rather than not, and be given the respect and space as a fellow human being to make the decision to trust you going forward. I'm grateful on a meta-level that my own reaction to your commentary on possible reactions was instructive to my self.
The writer/public-thinker is most vulnerable when they combine a meditation on a conventionally held belief with statistics that suggest that the belief in question may be wrong-headed, or just plain wrong.
Speculatively violating people's opinions on things using just your own opinionated reasoning is one form of vulnerability-mongering; but offering not just the suggestion, but perhaps proof, that someone's opinion is founded on error or falsehood is another kind of ballsy altogether, especially if the erroneous opinion in question is sentimentally beloved or widespread.
As an example of real vulnerability, consider Scott Aaronson's posting about his interactions with women, and the absolute roasting he got from internet women. (Scott Alexander had a lengthy post about it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/
I agree with your point that people should be free to talk about their experiences, hoping to be helpful, without worrying it makes them look bad.
Regarding the word vulnerable. About 4 decades ago someone said I was vulnerable, and I had no idea what they were talking about. Now I see they must have ment "open and honest about ones feelings". So this is not a very new usage. It seems okay to use vulnerable this way, remembering that sometimes a word has 2 or more very different meanings. I do not know of another word that means "open and honest about ones feelings", and with positive connotations. We can probably keep using vulnerable to mean "open to attack", without creating too much confusion, and without being told "that is not what vulnerable means". Even if we have to stop this usage it seems okay because we can just say something like "open to attack" instead.
I’m having trouble with your argument about the fellow who is writing a confessional with the intention of making it public. There is a very legitimate and concrete threat to be considered. In other words it is not rational to remain vulnerable when it’s really not in your interest ( The word interest in this sense is very broadly defined). Some would call this man foolhardy.
Some would call him brave but foolhardy.
Some will use this man as a scapegoat.
I think a person can be vulnerable only in so far as they are able to make a distinction between a real threat and an imagined one. So I try to focus on really listening to other people.
I enjoyed this piece and think you make a good point about what "being vulnerable" actually means. It is used interchangeably with "sharing something personal," which as you point out can be protection-seeking rather than risk-taking behavior depending on the context! And, it is interesting to note that the context can be more important than the content shared. This observation, taken together with the fact that most people are protection-seeking rather than risk-taking most of the time, suggests a mechanism by which the internet creates bubbles.
Side note: the FDA seems to be charting a course for the worst of all worlds: painfully slow *and* trust-eroding; if they don't care about staying above the political fray, the least they could do is be expeditious about it.
I liked this one. Another downside to praising vulnerability in this sense is it makes people want to talk about bad life experiences, and that’s okay sometimes but a norm that praises talking about bad stuff probably isn’t good.
You are a good writer. You have woven this tapestry with a very fine thread.
My personal working definition of vulnerability these days is to, as much as I possibly can, let other people be who they are.