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

The Four Levels of Social Entrapment

hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: The Four Levels of Social Entrapment

#81

Post by philwelch »

loewenskind wrote: post #77
philwelch wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm an intelligent American who occasionally tries talking about politics. Many otherwise intelligent Americans are monomaniacal nutjobs or partisan hacks when it comes to politics. Of course, many Americans who are not otherwise intelligent are just as bad. People get indoctrinated in a certain political viewpoint and don't have the ability to take on good faith anyone who disagrees with them. As a result of thi…

If they really are as intelligent as you/they think then try pointing out to them their close mindedness [1]. I used to be firmly on the American right wing (i.e. didn't think other ideologies had much merit, if any) until I came to Europe and realized my views simply could not be reconciled with countries like e.g. Sweden doing just fine. You can't discount something that works. As a programmer, I know that "works"…

Have you tried that? I have, and people don't respond right away. Maybe it sinks in and they get it weeks or months or years later, but so far no one has come back to thank me.

Whenever someone makes an identity-shattering or worldview-shattering argument to me, I violently resist it for weeks before it sinks in. Maybe that's what happens to other people, but it's still rather unsatisfying.

Re: The Four Levels of Social Entrapment

#82

Post by Gormo »

philwelch wrote: post #58
loewenskind wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why "talking politics" is something to so desperately avoid in the US. Many intelligent people just wont talk about leaving mostly the close minded life long party members to be the only voices. Personally I think this is why the political landscape is so awful in the US.

Hi, I'm an intelligent American who occasionally tries talking about politics. Many otherwise intelligent Americans are monomaniacal nutjobs or partisan hacks when it comes to politics. Of course, many Americans who are not otherwise intelligent are just as bad. People get indoctrinated in a certain political viewpoint and don't have the ability to take on good faith anyone who disagrees with them. As a result of thi…

I think if Americans had always been so averse to talking about politics in public, America would not exist.

Whether someone is willing an able to discuss politics in a civil manner is a good indication of their overall mindset and personality.

Re: The Four Levels of Social Entrapment

#83

Post by wallflower »

hugh3 wrote: post #60
wallflower wrote: post #13

It is embarrassing that some of the most otherwise socially capable people do not know the proper technique to extricate yourself from a conversation. First, what you don't do: 1. Never ever say "It was nice meeting you" and walk away. Worst case, you've made an enemy. 2. Do not say "I want to go to the buffet/bathroom". They may want to go along with you. What to do: 1. State what you want. "I'd like to go meet thos…

That runs the risk of not extricating yourself. Maybe you go and meet those people over there and your new "friend" comes with you. Turns out those people are boring too, so you have to move on to the next group of people. Saying "well, if you'll excuse me I'm going to get another drink/some food/whatever" is fine. They won't follow you unless you invite them (or at least they shouldn't), since that's code for "I'm d…

This strategy, as others have pointed out, is hedged heavily towards not ditching the solo "latch key" event attendee. For maximum effect, if you do try it (it's a rush), join a group that is seated by dragging chairs over (demonstrates maximum commitment) to sit down with the new group. A lot of what the other posters have said - it's nice meeting you is average social lubricant. What this strategy espouses is focusing on the other person, not you. You presumably are indifferent to 'nice meeting you' rejection. This is about not making the other party feel rejected. As a bonus, it makes you into a leader - organizing disparate groups, bridging cliched cliches...

Re: The Four Levels of Social Entrapment

#84

Post by loewenskind »

philwelch wrote: post #81
loewenskind wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they really are as intelligent as you/they think then try pointing out to them their close mindedness [1]. I used to be firmly on the American right wing (i.e. didn't think other ideologies had much merit, if any) until I came to Europe and realized my views simply could not be reconciled with countries like e.g. Sweden doing just fine. You can't discount something that works. As a programmer, I know that "works"…

Have you tried that? I have, and people don't respond right away. Maybe it sinks in and they get it weeks or months or years later, but so far no one has come back to thank me. Whenever someone makes an identity-shattering or worldview-shattering argument to me, I violently resist it for weeks before it sinks in. Maybe that's what happens to other people, but it's still rather unsatisfying.

I have in fact. I try to take it slow, get agreement on the importance of using logic for discussion as opposed to emotion and then when they say something that's obviously wrong I basically point out a counter example and ask them why they think the counter example violates their belief (softly, not aggressively like happens on the internet).

Re: The Four Levels of Social Entrapment

#85

Post by lsc »

loewenskind wrote: post #42
lsc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's easier for some people than for others. Especially for introverts, the skill of leaving gracefully is a non-trivial skill that needs to be learned. I mean, most people are capable of saying "fuck you leave me alone you asshole" but usually, you don't want to come off that strong. In most cases, you don't really have any desire to hurt the other person, and hell, you might even want to talk later, or talk about a…

I don't get why "talking politics" is something to so desperately avoid in the US. Many intelligent people just wont talk about leaving mostly the close minded life long party members to be the only voices. Personally I think this is why the political landscape is so awful in the US.

This question has made me think. I mean, I really do seem to be a better, happier person with more (and more diverse) friends when I avoid political discussions. I think a really big part of this is that I really enjoy being around people who are different from me. People who are good at different things; people who come from different backgrounds. (I mean, with some exceptions. I have prejudices, like everyone else. I'm working on it.) And these people, usually, have very different political and religious ideas than I do.

I mean, for example, I think having religion and going to church, in general, is no better (or worse) than, uh, religiously attending your favourite animé convention, and participating in con politics. I mean, both seem a little weird in my mind, but I have many friends who are deeply and genuinely religious, and many friends who regularly attend animé conventions. (really, I have little more than "Boy, that's... different" curiosity when it comes to religion or animé conventions.) I'd really rather keep both sets of friends. And you know what? If I keep bringing this up to my religious friends, they probably aren't going to want to be around me (just like if they kept trying to convert me, I probably wouldn't want to be around them.) I mean, I don't hide my non-belief, but I try to largely avoid the subject, and when it does come up, I try to be respectful, and ask they do the same for me.

Really, there are many areas of politics that are, if not directly religious in nature, are still taken on 'faith' -

For example, some people feel that society has a responsibility to take care of all of the less fortunate. Nobody should starve in the street or lack for basic medical care, regardless of what poor choices they made. Others feel that if society gives everyone a fair shake, their responsibility is met. Those who chose well should not be forced to support those who chose poorly.

Now, most people believe something between those two viewpoints... but it's fundamentally an emotional choice. Sure, you can argue the merits of a particular policy on logical grounds, but that is a mere implementation. the base question I gave as the example can really only be answered on an emotional level.

Post reply on HN