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

261–270 of 290 posts

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#261

Post by alentist »

hluska wrote: post #227
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…

Dude, you started this out by calling my views caricatures and end it with wishing me the best?? The cognitive dissonance is very very strong in you. I’m not going to reply to anything this disrespectful. Fake people aren’t worth my time. Edit - A great Jesuit priest and mentor once said to be very careful with people who start with an insult, move on to a bible quote and end with good wishes. I understand his positi…

Your comment was indeed full of caricatures:

> Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.'

> And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it.

> Only a man's calling can be legitimate.

> If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions.

> They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#262

Post by zh3 »

sophacles wrote: post #144
zh3 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a teacher who cycled to work every day, along a coastal route. Because he saw the same people so often, he set himself a goal to smile at all he recognised so they'd smile back. Last time we spoke, he was still battling one obstinate hold-out (while reminds me of an old joke - 'smiles' is actually the longest word in the english langugage because there's a mile between the s's).

If "smiles" is the longest, how do you explain "similes"?

Touche.

But more seriously, an imile is orthognal to the traditional one and as a result there is zero space between the s's.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#263

Post by HeckFeck »

the_only_law wrote: post #238
vosper wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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”

It’s a curse and a blessing. The inhibition makes it’s much easier to comfortably converse with a stranger, although the quality of discussion is likely to be trash (I can barely enunciate technical things verbally sober, and mostly sound like an idiot trying to after a few beers). The inhibition is also likely to make me discuss things that will give others a negative opinion of me (over sharing, etc.). Perhaps less…

> The inhibition is also likely to make me discuss things that will give others a negative opinion of me (over sharing, etc.).

The 'liquid courage' brings out the inner chum for too many of us. Which, I think, is simply a sign that there aren't enough people around with whom we can have the necessary deep personal conversations.

There's something of a chicken-and-egg effect that can happen here, where you need those conversations to advance and find better people, but have no decent people around because you've not had those conversations.

Maybe this is why most people would rather drown the conscience in noise, like TV, music, endless diversions. It's easier than facing the hard questions, doing the hard work of seeking others. But surely, needs exist because they can and must be met. If one opts to delay necessary attention, one will pay one in the long term. Life itself has a way of collecting its debts.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#264

Post by renewiltord »

Noos wrote: post #82

I dislike these kind of books, since they are designed to overcomplicate things by appealing to the mids and upper-mids needs to follow authority, defer to expertise, and use checklists and systems to try and remove any unpleasantness from interactions. "This common thing is really important! Because of science! Here is a study! Here are the health benefits! Let's also tie this into reducing climate change! I have us…

Delightful! I loved this comment.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#265

Post by theshrike79 »

technothrasher wrote: post #224
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…

> I often wonder if other people are even remotely like me or if all this comes easily and naturally to them at all times. I can't speak for others, but yes, I am more than remotely like you. I hate the phone, and for much of my life I had an incredibly hard time talking to strangers. As I've grown older (I am quickly approaching fifty) talking to strangers has become easier. I think it's because I care less about wh…

> it's because I care less about what they think of me

This is the key point. I figured the same thing out some years ago and talking on the phone has gotten a lot easier.

You are not the main character, nobody cares who you are or what you do. 99.99% of people you meet every day won't remember you at all.

Just talk, be cordial and go about your day afterwards.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#266

Post by acituan »

themacguffinman wrote: post #254
acituan wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're exclusively focusing on the first generation of remote workers, which had already responded to an existing non-remote setup. A second or third generation of reliable remote work would play an entirely different strategy which would create a much different ecosystem.

Either way, it is irrelevant. The gravity of "work here"ism is much higher than the agency of the workers.

> If anything, tech's resistance of remote work is the struggle to preserve America's last community: the workplace.

That's overly charitable on several accounts. Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention while being a machine that merely responds to a single ultimate parameter that is profit, in some shape or form. The fact that people could have a simulation of a community in the workplace is an externality they will tolerate, as long as HR is happy.

> 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.

How many of your workplace friends do you think would let you stay over for months should you find yourself homeless? Lend you $20K if need hits? Take care of you while sick? Be at your funeral? And vice versa?

Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#267

Post by themacguffinman »

acituan wrote: post #266
themacguffinman wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're exclusively focusing on the first generation of remote workers, which had already responded to an existing non-remote setup. A second or third generation of reliable remote work would play an entirely different strategy which would create a much different ecosystem. Either way, it is irrelevant. The gravity of "work here"ism is much higher than the agency of the workers. > If anything, tech's resistance of rem…

Does a second generation remote work ecosystem/strategy suddenly restore a social community of people you consistently spend 8 hours a day collaborating with? The only difference between first and second gen workers is that second/third gen might be more likely to be born in some random place because first gen wanted low CoL. Is hanging out with highschool buddies forever because in remote world you never leave your hometown supposed to be the replacement for second/third gen remote workers?

> Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention

I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.

> Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.

Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends. The workplace is one of the few guaranteed places left for adults to consistently meet people who they didn't just grow up with. If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that. I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#268

Post by acituan »

themacguffinman wrote: post #267
acituan wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exclusively focusing on the first generation of remote workers, which had already responded to an existing non-remote setup. A second or third generation of reliable remote work would play an entirely different strategy which would create a much different ecosystem. Either way, it is irrelevant. The gravity of "work here"ism is much higher than the agency of the workers. > If anything, tech's resistance of rem…

Does a second generation remote work ecosystem/strategy suddenly restore a social community of people you consistently spend 8 hours a day collaborating with? The only difference between first and second gen workers is that second/third gen might be more likely to be born in some random place because first gen wanted low CoL. Is hanging out with highschool buddies forever because in remote world you never leave your…

> Is hanging out with highschool buddies forever because in remote world you never leave your hometown supposed to be the replacement for second/third gen remote workers?

That would be an example of not being surrounded by strangers. Mind you a good chunk of tech is made of immigrants from countries where a neighborhood wouldn’t be reduced to high school buddies; would include (extended) family, neighborhood with its other constituents. The default choice of not leaving the locale one is raised up in, especially if one could make the same salary remotely, wouldn’t be a stretch.

> I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.

I do because it is an ersatz community born out of luck constrained by its makers. It is almost an in-flesh version of all-you-can-watch crap, in the sense of giving false satisfaction to real needs.

> Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends.

It would be absurd if you did. You’d only need a few, but unlikely to make any in a city of strangers.

> If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that.

Worst indictment is to make you think the sense of social interaction with those people can make up for a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.

> I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship

Again this is an absurd strawman. No one is telling you to only interact with friends. I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#269

Post by themacguffinman »

acituan wrote: post #268
themacguffinman wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does a second generation remote work ecosystem/strategy suddenly restore a social community of people you consistently spend 8 hours a day collaborating with? The only difference between first and second gen workers is that second/third gen might be more likely to be born in some random place because first gen wanted low CoL. Is hanging out with highschool buddies forever because in remote world you never leave your…

> Is hanging out with highschool buddies forever because in remote world you never leave your hometown supposed to be the replacement for second/third gen remote workers? That would be an example of not being surrounded by strangers. Mind you a good chunk of tech is made of immigrants from countries where a neighborhood wouldn’t be reduced to high school buddies; would include (extended) family, neighborhood with its…

> The default choice of not leaving the locale one is raised up in, especially if one could make the same salary remotely, wouldn’t be a stretch.

Wonderful, instead of having to go to a city where people of all kinds mix together with ambition and purpose, it's so much better for people to just stay where they grew up and stick to people who just happen to be born near them. That's a great slogan for lonely people: don't reach out of your comfort zone for people you'll love, just never move and you won't have to deal with unfamiliar people. I apologize for being so sarcastic, I thought it'd be slightly funnier than drily expressing how ridiculously dystopian I think that is.

> it is an ersatz community born out of luck

No more luck-based than randomly being born in a geographical area. At least there's a non-zero amount of choice and purpose involved in travelling to a city.

> a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.

It's been necessary to be near your workplace for a very long time, even before the industrial revolution. Such a causal link doesn't match up with any history I'm aware of.

> I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.

I didn't say that workplace acquaintances make real friends. I did say that workplaces are reliable communities that you can discover new people and make real friends in. Also, workplace acquaintances are good sources of socialization on their own when it comes to loneliness. I don't have to deceive myself to find great social value in such a professional and ambitious melting pot of people from all over the world. Should I be happy to be relieved of that opportunity? For what, the opportunity to never leave my birthplace (assuming I'm "second gen")?

> especially if one could make the same salary remotely

Okay you were the one telling me that corporations are solely focused on profits.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#270

Post by borski »

underseacables wrote: post #215
borski wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Maybe you should see someone about this, there’s no reason to get so worked up over a message board.

Oh, I wasn’t worked up, but this type of response happens frequently on HN, so it’s annoying.

Meanwhile, your comment here is rude and bears no value other than to insult me, which has no place here.

Post reply on HN