![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wispfoxThe question, from here, was 'Hmmm... do both map to "at liberty to proceed?" If so, the one involving preapproval should somehow be tagged "conditional liberty" if there's any way you can manage it.'
--
Mmm...
Except it's _not_ conditional, if I did, in fact, get the needed permission.
And yes, that's probably exactly what they both map to.
The problem here is this:
If it's a case where something does not automatically trigger 'this is something for which you need permission', my 'get permission first' filter doesn't kick in. It goes immediately to the state where I can just do whatever it is. And there is no thought at all at a conscious level about whether or not it makes sense - _even if someone not the person who it might affect specifically asks_. Because, in my head, I'm already past the point where such a question makes sense to me.
But 'being able to do' can equal both 'no permission was needed' and 'got needed permission', which can be a problem if something should have had a 'permission needed' filter and did not.
The above is, BTW, why I tend very strongly to _not_ reference other people most of the time, unless I _know_ that it's ok. Even about things that I don't think any privacy concerns are likely, because my privacy filters aren't always accurate to other people. It's not _just_ that I rarely use names (although that also factors in). If someone says I can reference them about specific things in specific contexts, and say it repeatedly, I might remember that it's ok.
And if I do tentatively reference other people because they've said it was ok often enough, I still might not do it consistently unless I have a _lot_ of reason to believe it really will be ok, _and_ I think that their privacy filters and mine are similar enough that relying on mine to figure out what I can and cannot say would be enough. Which sorta sucks if/when I run into a case where my privacy filters are _not_ similar to someone else's, and I thought they were.
But this 'not referencing other people' thing doesn't kick in when I'm conversing with those I trust - if whatever it is that I want to mention/reference/show also relates to me - unless whoever else it relates to _specifically_ tells me not to. Simply saying something which probably ought to imply that I should at least ask isn't enough. And because of how I'm wired, it will _never_ be enough; I can't regularly make that kind of supposedly obvious connection, or it's already not be a problem. 'obvious' is often _not_ obvious in my world. This probably relates strongly to this, although I only mentioned talking about things there, because that's all that occured to me at the time.
I'm attempting to rewire the specific example that I ran headfirst into so that it will _always_ trigger permission required thoughts, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to me, but this may be difficult, as it's something I only understand abstractly.
[edit] relating to the above paragraph - the degree to which I do not understand it intuitively means that, while yes, it's still because of my different privacy things around people I trust, I do _not_ think the specific example falls into the _really small_ subset of 'people I trust' mentioned in the thoughts on privacy link I have above. Trust, yes. Good comfort level, yes.
But... I think my 'want to share neat/nifty/sweet/entertaining/etc things with people' is what caused this to happen at all, and because I _did not notice_ the aspect which I believe ("I believe" because I'm not sure if it was more general than that or not) caused the privacy issue, it could have happened with people from the larger subset of people I am comfortable with. Which is probably a significant part of why this disturbs me as much as it does, and why I'm trying to rewire the entire category to be flagged as 'get permission'. Because if I don't _notice_ something, it'll never get into my normal categories of things to be asked about.
*shakes head* I don't _like_ how difficult it can be for me to grok other people's privacy requirements, when it relates to stuff that also relates to me. (when it doesn't relate to me, it doesn't matter. I don't feel a need to share things that don't at all relate to me)
--
Mmm...
Except it's _not_ conditional, if I did, in fact, get the needed permission.
And yes, that's probably exactly what they both map to.
The problem here is this:
If it's a case where something does not automatically trigger 'this is something for which you need permission', my 'get permission first' filter doesn't kick in. It goes immediately to the state where I can just do whatever it is. And there is no thought at all at a conscious level about whether or not it makes sense - _even if someone not the person who it might affect specifically asks_. Because, in my head, I'm already past the point where such a question makes sense to me.
But 'being able to do' can equal both 'no permission was needed' and 'got needed permission', which can be a problem if something should have had a 'permission needed' filter and did not.
The above is, BTW, why I tend very strongly to _not_ reference other people most of the time, unless I _know_ that it's ok. Even about things that I don't think any privacy concerns are likely, because my privacy filters aren't always accurate to other people. It's not _just_ that I rarely use names (although that also factors in). If someone says I can reference them about specific things in specific contexts, and say it repeatedly, I might remember that it's ok.
And if I do tentatively reference other people because they've said it was ok often enough, I still might not do it consistently unless I have a _lot_ of reason to believe it really will be ok, _and_ I think that their privacy filters and mine are similar enough that relying on mine to figure out what I can and cannot say would be enough. Which sorta sucks if/when I run into a case where my privacy filters are _not_ similar to someone else's, and I thought they were.
But this 'not referencing other people' thing doesn't kick in when I'm conversing with those I trust - if whatever it is that I want to mention/reference/show also relates to me - unless whoever else it relates to _specifically_ tells me not to. Simply saying something which probably ought to imply that I should at least ask isn't enough. And because of how I'm wired, it will _never_ be enough; I can't regularly make that kind of supposedly obvious connection, or it's already not be a problem. 'obvious' is often _not_ obvious in my world. This probably relates strongly to this, although I only mentioned talking about things there, because that's all that occured to me at the time.
I'm attempting to rewire the specific example that I ran headfirst into so that it will _always_ trigger permission required thoughts, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to me, but this may be difficult, as it's something I only understand abstractly.
[edit] relating to the above paragraph - the degree to which I do not understand it intuitively means that, while yes, it's still because of my different privacy things around people I trust, I do _not_ think the specific example falls into the _really small_ subset of 'people I trust' mentioned in the thoughts on privacy link I have above. Trust, yes. Good comfort level, yes.
But... I think my 'want to share neat/nifty/sweet/entertaining/etc things with people' is what caused this to happen at all, and because I _did not notice_ the aspect which I believe ("I believe" because I'm not sure if it was more general than that or not) caused the privacy issue, it could have happened with people from the larger subset of people I am comfortable with. Which is probably a significant part of why this disturbs me as much as it does, and why I'm trying to rewire the entire category to be flagged as 'get permission'. Because if I don't _notice_ something, it'll never get into my normal categories of things to be asked about.
*shakes head* I don't _like_ how difficult it can be for me to grok other people's privacy requirements, when it relates to stuff that also relates to me. (when it doesn't relate to me, it doesn't matter. I don't feel a need to share things that don't at all relate to me)
