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

The vital art of talking to strangers

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 290 posts

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#251

Post by siquick »

rdtwo wrote: post #229
siquick wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why consuming video content, specifically streaming services with all-you-can-stream crap is so damaging. People no longer have time for shared dinners, clubs, or adult sports leagues because they'd rather binge watch a new series every week. In my experience it’s not that people would rather watch videos than see their friends or do their hobbies, it’s that they’re working jobs which consume their lives to…

Man I envy you, to have time and emotional energy to invest in a tv show. It’s too much a commitment for me. This must be why folks just want to watch reruns of friends no investment

I don't really watch that many TV shows, I usually fall asleep by the 35 minute mark.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#252

Post by nr2x »

munificent wrote: post #15

I have a hypothesis that almost all of the US's current cultural problems would be solved if once a month we all cooked and shared a meal with another randomly chosen family.

Yet my tolerance for casual racism is low, and depending where you are in the country, that’s definitely on the menu.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#253

Post by nr2x »

diplomatpuppy wrote: post #240
sgerenser wrote: post #239

A few years ago my daughter was 3 and was going through a phase where she’d go up to any random stranger she met and ask “hello, what’s your name?” Talked to a lot of random people this way. Nobody can resist talking to an inquisitive 3 year old. I remember I was in an airport waiting for a flight to Boston and happened to talk to a guy who’s son just started college at the same college I had gone to. Which was surpr…

My kids did the same thing - turns out it let them understand what normal behaviour looks like. When someone offered one of them something weird and dangerous, they recognized that it wasn't normal.

Good point, I’ve also been a little wary, but this comment makes me feel better about letting the kids talk. Thanks.

Aside, favorite thing my kid did was say to a random old guy “hey pops, what’s your name”

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#254

Post by themacguffinman »

acituan wrote: post #236
socialist_coder wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're spot on. Anything that increases your exposure to strangers and builds trust will be a boon to society. This is also the case with social clubs and sports leagues. Membership of these things has been in decline for decades and is now at an all-time low. Being in a bowling league or the rotary club with random members of your community did a ton to increase basic trust in society. Which in turn, makes everythin…

> Anything that increases your exposure to strangers and builds trust will be a boon to society. It takes a few bad exposures to ruin your mental model of strangers. And I am not convinced it is entirely a bad thing. The concept of being surrounded by strangers is a 20-21st century urban phenomenon. In an environment where people are not strangers to each other 2 things happen; 1) they can build a more accurate model…

Remote work is often more isolating and lonely for workers, I don't see how it's a "less lonely arrangement". If anything, tech's resistance of remote work is the struggle to preserve America's last community: the workplace. Friendships born in the workplace are a staple of urban life, it's one of the few places left where you can regularly and guaranteedly meet with people. Remote workers will still find themselves surrounded by strangers when they arrive at the cheap city they were incentivized to move into, but this time they'll have one less place to socialize.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#255

Post by beezischillin »

vosper wrote: post #232
beezischillin wrote: post #145

I grew up as a very lonely child so I struggle a lot with talking to strangers, usually the idea way more than the practice. Knowing that I’ll have to call a stranger on the phone or go to a social event full of unknown people stresses me out to the point of often thinking of many ways of how I’d like to get out of them. In social situations I struggle to let go and have to put enormous amounts of energy to act ‘norm…

> In social situations I struggle to let go and have to put enormous amounts of energy to act ‘normal’, yet most people don’t even pick up on it. Have you tried having a couple of drinks? There’s a reason they call alcohol a “social lubricant”

Molly was the closest thing that made me feel how it would've been if I grew up different :)

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#256

Post by alentist »

machinehermiter wrote: post #212
socialist_coder wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally. As a devout Anti-theist I really wish I could join some kind of secular group that was identical to a church but without the religion. Go every Sunday with my family, socialize with the folks, have potlucks and events, help people out when they need it, etc. We need to bring back this sense of community.

Isn't the problem though that this doesn't work without a fiction that we all believe to be non-fiction? You need to create a fiction that is believed in more than any individual differences but it doesn't work if we know it is fiction. The group will not be able to put aside differences for very long without it. There is very clever aspect to what the church has done that is very hard to replicate. I really think te…

Why "fiction"?

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#257

Post by alentist »

mcavoybn wrote: post #218
iammisc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Io make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine. What? I never made that argument. You're putting words in my mouth and calling me asinine. Please actually respond to what I wrote. > Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and…

>We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that! Regardless of the details of your argument, or whether my paraphrase of your original comment was accurate, it is an infeasible solution to suggest that everyone needs to go to church in order to address the loneliness, social anxiety, and tribalism. Your comments all have a condescending, passive aggressive tone and you are trying all kinds of dirty ta…

This is a more apt description of your own comments, not least because you misattributed a completely fictitious "argument" to the GP. Perhaps your anger is clouding your ability to understand the GP's comments, which have been very respectful.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#258

Post by themacguffinman »

iammisc wrote: post #166
abeyer wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be simultaneously arguing that it's ok to ignore the religious trappings and just treat the church as a social club, but also that the church is better than just any social club because of the religious trappings.

You've summed up my position pretty well. If you're not religiously inclined, then you can treat the church as a social club and ignore the religious trappings. It would behoove you to keep your atheism to yourself though, because the church is better than just any social club because of the religious nature. While some number of public doubters can be tolerated without negatively impacting the group, if it gets to b…

In my experience, good & satisfying relationships are rooted in trust, loyalty, and respect. I don't really see how hiding your atheism in a community exclusively for believers is anything but a massive betrayal of trust. And how is this worth spending 2 - 3 hours, likely a majority of church time, in a sermon or religious discussion you are utterly unengaged in?

Either you build a friendship on lies, or you spend most of your bonding time unengaged.

I think it's certainly possible to build a substantial relationship with a religious person when you aren't religious yourself, but I'd imagine that in such a scenario, each of you would at least respect each other enough to be honest about your core beliefs.

I can appreciate that if you still believe in their god, there's still a lot of faith and "religious trappings" you can earnestly share. For atheists and the nonreligious, IMHO this seems like terrible advice.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#259

Post by iammisc »

themacguffinman wrote: post #258
iammisc wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've summed up my position pretty well. If you're not religiously inclined, then you can treat the church as a social club and ignore the religious trappings. It would behoove you to keep your atheism to yourself though, because the church is better than just any social club because of the religious nature. While some number of public doubters can be tolerated without negatively impacting the group, if it gets to b…

In my experience, good & satisfying relationships are rooted in trust, loyalty, and respect. I don't really see how hiding your atheism in a community exclusively for believers is anything but a massive betrayal of trust. And how is this worth spending 2 - 3 hours, likely a majority of church time, in a sermon or religious discussion you are utterly unengaged in? Either you build a friendship on lies, or you spend mo…

I believe if you're honest with yourself and follow the secular lines of reasoning you will arrive at deism pretty easily

I think atheists are just people who refuse to accept the natural conclusions.

So I don't see any need to hide your atheism really. We're all prone to folly, pride and irrationality and inconclusive thinking.

Honestly, if an atheist came to my Church and was open about it, that's fine with me. I confess doubt all the time too... It's not like I'm perfect. If the number of times my atheist friends have sincerely prayed before a big exam are any indication, I'd think most atheists have periods of extreme fervor.

But, when I've been more of an atheist, I've still found amazing value in religion, so I guess I'm probably just weird.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#260

Post by alentist »

edmundsauto wrote: post #213
iammisc wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your candor. You seem to have pretty set views, but I think they're caricatures. In particular, while pro-life work that is most visible is someone praying at a planned parenthood (and of course, the ones that harass are typically not even Catholic, since it's not just catholics in this 'movement'), the bulk of pro-life work is exceptionally boring things like collecting bottles, diapers, baby clothes, p…

> Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Inaccurate - the Greeks, for example, had institutionalized pederasty disguised as building bonds between generations. The Romans had... problematic beliefs about heterosexual sex as well. > The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes It speaks volumes about how incomplete the historical record is, but very little else. Did the person who wrote this passage ever even me…

> I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures.

You're under a false impression, and are spreading a myth [0][1]. In fact, your claim is exactly backwards: Certain laypeople (you seem to be among them) demand more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for other famous people of antiquity.

> And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed.

First, this is complete nonsense, given that ~77% of the Bible is the Old Testament, whose books have been dated to centuries BCE [1].

Second, if we charitably reinterpret your comment as referring to the New Testament, it is also false. The Book of Revelation is generally accepted by traditional scholarship to have been written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) [1]. A handful (3-4) of other books are dated to 110 CE at most.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Post reply on HN