Ask HN: What has your work taught you that other people don't realize?

I provided a measurable piece of data for my conclusions, which I'll put in pseudo-code:

CLASS partner; //object to define each sex partner, most variables omitted for simplicity

    BOOL ahole; //dickish statement made post-coitus

    BOOL itsover; //relationship terminated by other party

FLOAT failure_rate;

RANGE(partners):

IF (ahole AND itsover):

     terminated++

The sample size may be small from a statistician's perspective, but the results are nevertheless measurable and, more importantly, actionable, at the individual level. So basically I'm asking you, what does your "shallowness" function look like in similar pseudo-code? And I'm asserting that whatever variables you include, if we did a deep dive on them we would find some characteristic or behavior that the jerk in the equation could optimize for in order to maintain a favorable outcome.

>>>1. If it's the case that you disagree in it being dehumanizing.

Yes, option 1. But I'm a member of an organization that considers being called a "Steely-Eyed Baby Killer" a sort of compliment, so I'm sure you and I have vastly different Overton Windows for what constitutes dehumanizing commentary.

>>>I disagree and think it is dehumanizing and if someone said that to me after sex I would be pissed and lose interest. How about myself for a reference no data needed.

As I said before, what people SAY and what they actually DO are very often not the same. More importantly, they rarely even realize the cognitive dissonance. Data has to be collected from the party doing the seduction, which has a totally different frame of reference. Hence the analogy "Don't ask a fish how to catch fish, ask a fisherman."

>>>"Again it's your opinion that it doesn't matter after a connection has been built and I disagree strongly. If you think I'm the only human who disagrees ok."

Well let's circle allllll the way back to my original comment. I caveat-ed my position with a "tends to". Of course there is always some non-zero population for which the above doesn't apply. But the salient points are that a) a system model is applicable b) the model can be optimized c) the optimization is fault-tolerant significantly more often than not. Any guy with a sufficiently-deep notch count can corroborate that.

In order for my position to be false, the same high-notch count guys would have to be experiencing abnormally-high post-coital rejections due to assholish commentary, and that's definitely NOT the case.

I think the main principle that describes this situation where you can put yourself in someone else’s shoes is empathy. A complimentary principle in my mind is humility. Humility as I was taught is a principle not of self deprecation, but of self honesty. For example it would not be “I know nothing”, but instead “I know quite a lot of things but there is still a lot I don’t know”. Just like thinking you know nothing, thinking you know everything is also not humility. The self honesty part of humility can be about any of your capabilities not just knowledge.

When you give yourself the opportunity to be humble and say this person has a whole life of experiences that I don’t have and if I approach them the right way about it and empathize they can give me perspective on their ideas and choices. This leads you to understand them better and help them through a difficulty or trial or problem they are having it could also do the same for you as then you can say “I’ve never thought of it like that before.” This is not to say you should agree with their worldview blindly and follow your emotions blindly, but once you’ve allowed your controlled emotions to get you this far use knowledge to make a rational decision on which side to choose and if you feel like helping them see what you see present it in a way to them that is constructive.

I’ve found these two principles useful not only when I discuss with others but also when I read the thoughts of others too. For example if I read a biography, I ask what unique perspectives does this person have, and what can this person teach me whether it’s something they themselves thought and acted on correctly or incorrectly.

> Have you ever told a woman, after coitus, how you ran the same Game on them that you've run dozens of times before? ... They'll usually just laugh it off / not take it seriously.

Nope. But to my defense I haven't had a single ONS so I don't know how my bedside talk would be in that situation. I don't see myself as a dick so I don't think I would go for the "you know what, I used that routine on all the other ladies I had sex with and in my opinion you are just a system of pleasure spots and when I press them in the right order you go to heaven, funny huh?"

And your phone blowing up means you are a cunning cunnilinguist that women like to use to get off. Not that you necessarily is a decent person.

> a) a system model is applicable b) the model can be optimized c) the optimization is fault-tolerant significantly more often than not.

And based on your comments I have a hard time seeing a decent respectful person.

But you seem to be a good lay! Are you bi?