Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Science of Making Friends

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 235 posts

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#131

Post by koluft »

stonecraftwolf wrote: post #124
baron816 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please trust that I did read your comment carefully, agree with the issues you raised, and am working to resolve them. I sent you an email, with an apology, and my plan to fix the problem. I want all my users to feel completely comfortable and safe using the platform, and will respond swiftly to any issues raised. I believe there are certain unfortunate risks that people, and women especially, must deal with in this…

I think we may have cross-posted our replies/edits. Honestly, I think the best you can do is approach it with an open mind, which you seem to be doing now. A big part of my irritation was the dismissiveness that I think originates in the common fallacy that I described in my other reply. But it's also...I mean. People--women, especially--have been talking about these sorts of problems with social networks for as long…

Can you give an example of an organization that does this screening process properly, as a role model?

My church, grocery store, and local bars, to give a few examples, don't give me an advance lists of attendees to scren before I show up somewhere. If I see someone I can't be near, one of us has to leave. Thankfully, this collision happens only occasional

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#132

Post by koluft »

baron816 wrote: post #105
stonecraftwolf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Picking and choosing" is not remotely the same thing as "screening," and that you conflate the two indicates that you either didn't read my comment in good faith or you missed the point by an almost insurmountable margin. I'd urge you to listen to the needs of your users. You managed to dismiss this out of hand in a way that implies you haven't thought much about women at all. Obviously you don't have to, and you wo…

Please trust that I did read your comment carefully, agree with the issues you raised, and am working to resolve them. I sent you an email, with an apology, and my plan to fix the problem. I want all my users to feel completely comfortable and safe using the platform, and will respond swiftly to any issues raised. I believe there are certain unfortunate risks that people, and women especially, must deal with in this…

You've done an admirable job responding to drive-by badgering with open-minded interest, patience, and kindness. Kudos to you.

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#133

Post by koluft »

nlh wrote: post #63
colmvp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange. I had the opposite experience. I made more friends in NYC in 2 years than real friends in SF in 4. That's not to blame people, because hey, it takes two to tango and my behavior sabotaged my own success. But even though I am in tech, I still never felt comfortable in the monoculture of SF than while in NY.

Interesting data point - thanks for sharing. Tell me more: how did you meet and make friends in NYC? In SF - I find there's a more intimate social scene -- more dinner parties than bar nights, so easier to have meaningful interactions. Maybe I'm just seeing the product of my own growing up...

I haven't been invited to any dinner parties with strangers to become friends with. My existing friends invite me to dinner parties.

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#134

Post by kelvin0 »

I've seen 'Friends' and 'Couples' sitting at restaurants staring at their phones, the whole time they are together. It's already difficult with age to make friends, if you add the 'mobile' factor you can dwindle the probability to zero ...

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#135

Post by stegosaurus »

nostrademons wrote: post #129
stegosaurus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're absolutely spot on with this. I'm going through a period of change in my personal life at the moment, and I'm definitely going to keep this in mind, so thank you. One thing I would take issue with is conflating an app with societal change, though. The latter is much much harder. I think that in developed countries we have lost our way a bit. Work-life balance, to me, would mean that I work hard, and pl…

Oh, I think we absolutely are individually choosing this state. It's just that we're responding to incentives that are basically emergent behavior resulting from the choices of everyone else. You always have the choice to ignore incentives; that's why they are incentives and not compulsion . But ignoring an incentive means that you accept not getting the benefits that are offered by that incentive. A lot of people fo…

There's a very steep reward curve, though. It's not like, a 10% incentive. It's hundreds of percentage points.

Very rough numbers here:

Generic person might be able to earn $50K working 40 hour weeks in their most optimal career (one that uses their skills).

Same person might also be able to earn $25K working 20 hour weeks doing a similar thing.

They could also earn minimum wage with a rota that isn't really under their control much.

But the real 'work-life balance' option, the one in which the tables are turned and someone decides to 'schedule' work for 8pm on a Saturday or whatever because it's free in the diary?

As far as I can tell this just sort of doesn't exist. I mean you could do piecemeal bits and bobs for neighbours, maybe. But a sustainable source of money sufficient to eat and heat, pay for a roof?

An example would be a 24 hour supermarket. The employees could bid to fill slots and the rate they'd charge to cover periods. But it's not set up that way because the capital owners hold all the cards and it'd be less optimal for them. What you get instead, is 'come to work 6pm thursday or you are fired, kthx'.

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#136

Post by koluft »

oolongCat wrote: post #24

>A study published in February in the British Journal of Psychology looked at 15,000 respondents and found that people who had more social interactions with close friends reported being happier—unless they were highly intelligent. People with higher I.Q.s were less content when they spent more time with friends. Psychologists theorize that these folks keep themselves intellectually stimulated without a lot of social…

The "speculation" is the worst part of a science research. It gets the most air play but has but has the least basis in fact.

Perhaps more intelligent people (by IQ test) are more introverted -- more thinking less feeling/EQ, and so are less comfortable with the company of other people they don't know well. That certainly fits the bookworm/ computer nerd / uberhobbyist type of high IQ person.

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#137

Post by WalterBright »

WalterBright wrote: post #115
stegosaurus wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only explains half of the picture, though. The photograph in the linked article explains it quite well to me - regardless of how 'real' it is, there's a picture of a shiny gathering with the dresses and the shiny clothes and the fancy food, and so on. And there's nothing wrong with that. I love me some good dress-up and the food there looks super yum. But the simple gatherings seem to have disappeared. Outside o…

I find it tiresome that it becomes hard to just have friends over. Have to negotiate a time, clean the house, get food, and if you're going to a friend's house you're expected to "bring something", etc. Sigh.

Back in college, the rule in the dorms was if your door was open, you were welcoming anyone who wanted to drop in and hang out.

40 years later, I still miss that.

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#138

Post by markeroon »

cmurf wrote: post #119
stegosaurus wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only explains half of the picture, though. The photograph in the linked article explains it quite well to me - regardless of how 'real' it is, there's a picture of a shiny gathering with the dresses and the shiny clothes and the fancy food, and so on. And there's nothing wrong with that. I love me some good dress-up and the food there looks super yum. But the simple gatherings seem to have disappeared. Outside o…

Do a weekly (or monthly) dinner. They key is consistency (OK an informality: byob, bring something you like, open invite instead of rsvps, etc).

This is spot on.

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#139

Post by copperx »

tormeh wrote: post #53
WA wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Carnegie book isn’t that great, because it’s easy to misinterpret the rules . An often mentioned strategy is to be a good listener. This gets repeated ad nauseam, but is it actually true? I found that people become more open if you put a story on the table first. It’s like an investment. You open yourself a little bit and tell something about yourself, whereas a question about the other person asks them t…

This is true. The first step in any relationship is establishing goodwill or even just lack of malevolence (which if it's romantic and you're pursuing women is extremely important). Everything else comes after. People want to talk openly about themselves, but not unilaterally.

That's true. I read Carnegie's book as a teenager and for a long time tried to be the best listener, which I think I became. I asked thoughtful questions and rarely opened up myself. That's not the way things work. In my experience, one needs to have interesting stories before other people open up.

Re: The Science of Making Friends

#140

Post by danieltillett »

mistersquid wrote: post #94
zappo2938 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was really young I lived in a small town and things were tight financially for most people. I guess helping each other when someone needed something was a not some virtuous thing but rather a form of currency. Hey, can you help wire the electric to the shack in the back yard. Sure, can your daughter watch my boys tonight. And, it continues like this. I disagree. I think there is a reasonable expectation that s…

So there is something called The Ben Franklin effect, [0] which basically says that people are more likely to befriend/like you if you ask them to do you a big favor rather than the other way around. The psychological explanation is that people will smooth the cognitive dissonance between their indifference and/or antipathy to you and the fact that they have actually done a favor for you by revising their opinion of…

I always wondered what this effect is called. It works amazingly well.

You need to be aware of the related effect which is helping someone when they can't return the favor is an very effective way to create an enemy. The cognitive dissonance created by a favor that can't be paid back is resolved by revising their opinion of you in the negative.

Post reply on HN