[Theory Thursday #1, part 2]

[sythyry]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

Thanks, truly, for everyone who answered my last post. I am trying to thrash this out, and I don’t have very many people around that I can safely talk to about it. I appreciate the discussion — I appreciate the direct challenge to some of my basic principles, even. I do not promise to agree with anything you say, but I will try to be an intellectually honest little lizard, and try to understand them at least.

I am not sure quite how to go about this, though.

There are at least two sensible approaches.

First, I might have mis-classified myself in my current (and correct) classification system. I had somewhat assumed that in my previous post, but many of you have challenged me on it, so I am willing to consider the possibility that this is the wrong question altogether.

Or Second, my current classification system might be incorrect, in a lesser or greater degree. (Example ‘lesser’: modify the definition of ‘traff’ to allow some same-species interest. Example ‘greater’: toss the whole thing out, and simply rank a person’s possible interest in each of the eight prime species on a scale from 1-12.)

But I can’t see all the way to picking a new classification system right now. Before that, I should at least try to think of what makes a good classification system. Here are a few thoughts from a distinctly dazed dragonet:

1. Conciseness: it has as few categories as possible.
2. Simplicity: Each category is well-described by a simple phrase.
3. Accuracy: it describes people well; in particular, nobody is in two categories.
4. Ethnocentricity: it makes sense in terms of prime people and culture
5. Canonicality: it is, in a sense that I cannot currently define, defined sensibly. (E.g., a system with “likes mammals” and “likes non-mammals” is more canonical than “likes Cani and Rassimel” and “likes the other six species”.)
6. Usefulness: it is useful, e.g., for telling who I should admit to Castle Wrong on the basis of romantic preferences.

Bearing in mind that my current system scores well on all of these save, perhaps, accuracy. [Bard adds 'and canonicality' for reasons of its own. -bb]

Addendum: Tarfnie

(Tarfnie’s situation was rather more complicated than it might have seemed from my brief description. The Considerable Drama part of it include a number of regrettable incidents from nearly everyone involved, and I might have expelled Tarfnie — or Yowdon — on the basis of violence. The observation that Tarfnie was not traff and Yowdon was did help my decision. One or both of them had to go, though. I grant that several aspects of the situation continue to trouble me, and that I did not behave particularly well myself: but it was not so simple or wicked as discovering that Tarfnie was cissy and immediately tossing him out.)

Comments

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

A major problem here is that any system that focuses on brevity and simplicity will pretty much necessarily be at the expense of accuracy. People are complex; oversimplifying will lose a lot of important details. And when that oversimplification is repeated through multiple layers, it becomes even more of a problem - then you have people who don't even realize that there is complexity being lost, because they're taking the simplified version as absolute.

Castle Wrong might be best taken in a different metric entirely: people who are shunned by society, but not for anything that actually harmed anyone else, can have a place where they can be welcome. Or it can be left as "having transaffectionate leanings" without it being an absolute.

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't want everyone. One Blenny is enough, for one thing. And having us be mostly traff means that there is a certain common understanding, common flirting, and considerable tolerance for other traff-folk.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

That's fair - you shouldn't be obliged to be everyone's charity. Thus, the second option I said. Mostly what I meant by "not absolute" is "not going to ostracize someone who happens to have some interest in their own species, they will be welcomed so long as they are generally decent people who have some interest in other prime species". Tolerance for traff, at the very least, being a requirement - and by that I mean that if they're hit on/flirted with by someone they're not interested in, they can turn it down in such a manner as though it's just a personal incompatibility, not "ew traff". More comfortable for everyone(or nearly) to have a substantial amount of transaffection - just stop treating it as a harsh, either/or duality. The neat cubbyholes make for simple thought, but as mentioned, they have a way of missing important details.

Short version, then: Keep transaffection as the focus of Castle Wrong, that's entirely fair. Just allow for the possibility that someone who shows interest in zir own species can still be substantially traff(and vice versa) without having "lied" about it.