> So regarding the article and your example, indoor climbing may be commonplace in your peer-group while still being non-normative in someone like the author's peer-group.
It was normative in that one team and is not normative in other groups I am member of. You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off.
That is just not the case. Climbing made me normative in that place. We talked about it a lot, note past tense. And in other places they talked about stuff that profoundly is not interesting or available ro me.
It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.
>You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off.
I made no such claims. I literally only used the sole example you used.
>It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. All I am stating is that if you find yourself in a fairly homogenous group that you don't necessarily fit in, it can be an alienating experience. My only other claim is that point seemed to fly by you because you were more concerned with things you're interested in, like indoor rock climbing, being painted as "bad".
>It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.
I’m not sure how you can have this takeaway. My point is literally the exact opposite idea about how homogeneous cultures can be alienating if we aren’t careful.
> because you were more concerned with things you're interested in, like indoor rock climbing, being painted as "bad"
I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to - the one that claimed article says those hobbies are bad. It does not sound terribly difficult to understand to me. I opposed characterization of article itself.
You are trying to explain to me something about alienation when people in the room dont have the same hobbies, which has nothing to do with my point.
>I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to
I know, and what I'm trying to point out is that it misses what I consider the larger point. Your point above is tantamount to a "they started it" defense. Both you and the person you are responding to can be simultaneously missing the bigger picture. I was deliberately responding to the child comment because it would address both the child and the parent. My point is that your comment (and the one you responded towards) is wrongly focused, which has very much to do with your point. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to see that perspective, even just to refute it, makes this dialogue tiresome. It would be like somebody writing an article about how a politician's rhetoric is divisive and somebody constantly defends it by saying it's eloquent...you can be "not-wrong" and still miss the point.
It was normative in that one team and is not normative in other groups I am member of. You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off.
That is just not the case. Climbing made me normative in that place. We talked about it a lot, note past tense. And in other places they talked about stuff that profoundly is not interesting or available ro me.
It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.