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

Rejection Therapy (2011)

lincolnquirk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#71

Post by klyrs »

morelisp wrote: post #55
klyrs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "thinking rationally" mean in this context?

As idlewords once described it, "AI cosplay" - a dumb person's idea of what a smart computer would do. It's honestly a little heartening that comments on HN don't immediately recognize the movement anymore.

I've heard of a few flavors of "rationality" and I was mostly curious what rationalism would specifically recommend in this situation. Particularly, I know that regionalists strive for a Vulcan-like emotionless mindset -- but even Vulcans are capable of reasoning about others' emotional processes. Simply ignoring/dismissing the emotions of others is absurdly irrational -- one might as well refuse to account for the effect of gravity because we don't fully understand it.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#72

Post by beaconstudios »

munificent wrote: post #68
beaconstudios wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good compromise would be something like asking people what the time is, or if they know any good restaurants in the area or something that isn't really asking them for something weird.

But that's not rejection therapy. That's just talking to strangers, which is totally reasonable. The point of rejection therapy is to make a request in a pushy enough way for something that the other person doesn't want to do that they end up assertively saying no. It's not "friendly offer therapy" or "polite decline therapy".

Alright then, how about asking out random people on a date after like a 2 minute conversation? That's a kind of rejection people often fear the most but it's also fairly normal to ask people out after a little small talk.

My point is that you don't have to push other people into strange territory to get rejected.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#73

Post by dtrent »

olyjohn wrote: post #59
dtrent wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe but making the decision for someone else of whether, when, and how their anxieties should be challenged is, again, kind of shitty

Are you saying that you should never interact with strangers because you might make them anxious? There's probably tons of things that can make people anxious. I'm not going to lock myself in the house to avoid making others anxious. As a socially anxious person myself, I would love for someone to start the conversation with me.

No. I'm saying you shouldn't deceptively use people for your personal benefit by interrupting whatever they're doing with a pretextual request as a form of therapy for yourself.

I hear you--I dealt with social anxiety severely for many years and still do to a lesser extent. But nothing about this justifies cynically exploiting people under false pretenses for selfish ends.

If you want to talk to strangers, great! Just don't deceive them for selfish ends.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#74

Post by sirmarksalot »

beaconstudios wrote: post #30
sirmarksalot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets complicated, doesn't it? I mean, in your example, you're doing things that help people, vs. the author creating social pressure to do unreasonable things, but in either case, you're both still pulling people out of their comfort zone without their consent. The way society works vs. community makes all of these things ethically difficult. Communities get built when people step out of their comfort zones and he…

I'm not sure how social alienation (everybody just pretending each other don't exist) can be framed as a good thing for keeping society together. In my eyes, it's an extremely negative side effect of economic individualism. We'd be better off if we were all a bit more connected to the people around us.

Social alienation is a coping mechanism, and like most/all coping mechanisms, it provides some value, but at a cost.

The value of social alienation is that you can walk down a crowded street and not be asked by every single person how your day is going, what you got up to last night, how your cat's doing, etc. etc. Caring about the intimate details of everyone else's life just doesn't scale. At some point you need to be able to call out some people as being more important to you than others, and ignore the rest.

And of course, this can damage you emotionally, make you numb to the needs of others, and prevent you from forming a community with the people around you.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#75

Post by ionwake »

dtrent wrote: post #73
olyjohn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that you should never interact with strangers because you might make them anxious? There's probably tons of things that can make people anxious. I'm not going to lock myself in the house to avoid making others anxious. As a socially anxious person myself, I would love for someone to start the conversation with me.

No. I'm saying you shouldn't deceptively use people for your personal benefit by interrupting whatever they're doing with a pretextual request as a form of therapy for yourself. I hear you--I dealt with social anxiety severely for many years and still do to a lesser extent. But nothing about this justifies cynically exploiting people under false pretenses for selfish ends. If you want to talk to strangers, great! Jus…

You are taking this to an extreme and I’d argue that at this level aren’t all conversations self serving ? In the end it’s an exchange of information. At this extreme not clarifying a question would be a deception.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#76

Post by sirmarksalot »

omginternets wrote: post #53
cjlm wrote: post #3

I think about Rejection Therapy [0] a lot. Being impervious to rejection has to be some sort of superpower. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_Therapy

As with most things, I think it's a balance. A complete desensitization to rejection also implies an inability to regulate your social behavior, which in turn is a great way to get ostracized. The best hard-salesmen are also some of the most insufferable individuals, precisely because they can't take a hint.

So there's a difference between being able to handle emotions, and not feeling them at all. The point of a lot of these exercises isn't to desensitize you to these feelings, but to teach you how to recognize, process and deal with them. A lot of the maladaptations we have come from avoiding negative feelings, and sacrificing our long-term well-being to prevent ourselves from encountering them.

I'm sure there's training out there to completely burn out your amygdala and turn you into a psychopath, but I wouldn't assume that's what this is.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#77

Post by openknot »

klabb3 wrote: post #36

Slightly OT: It seems to me that a large part of our social fabric is based on chance encounters. Talking to strangers in passing, as you go about your day to day business. With increasing digitalization, especially in the first world, we're quickly losing these opportunities. There is often no longer any need to talk to anyone when buying groceries, running errands, asking for directions, etc. All of these are poten…

This is an interesting perspective, though I would argue that the internet has created superior substitutes. It's hard for me to see random encounters as entry points to friendship, acquaintances, or romantic partners, though I speak with a bias from living in a city. When buying groceries and running errands, I'm typically focused on getting in and out quickly; I'm not as receptive to talking with others. If someone is asking for directions, I'm willing to help out via Maps, but I'm also aware that the person might be trying to steal my phone.

Despite this, regular chance encounters are alive and well. You can go to the gym, hang out at a pub, or stay at a coffee shop. People are typically more receptive to speak in these contexts, all of which can't be replicated in a digital space due to the reliance on physical equipment (e.g. weights, exercise machines, drinks, and coffee machines). Martial arts in particular can really expose you to people of different ages, socioeconomic groups, and interests.

Outside of these, I believe that conferences and seminars are a good way to meet others, which the internet helps with. I can see technology making these in-person activities less intuitive (it's so easy to just spend time on social media), but if there's a will to see others, technology can help rather than harm.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#78

Post by beaconstudios »

sirmarksalot wrote: post #74
beaconstudios wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how social alienation (everybody just pretending each other don't exist) can be framed as a good thing for keeping society together. In my eyes, it's an extremely negative side effect of economic individualism. We'd be better off if we were all a bit more connected to the people around us.

Social alienation is a coping mechanism, and like most/all coping mechanisms, it provides some value, but at a cost. The value of social alienation is that you can walk down a crowded street and not be asked by every single person how your day is going, what you got up to last night, how your cat's doing, etc. etc. Caring about the intimate details of everyone else's life just doesn't scale. At some point you need to…

I don't believe that's the origin point of social alienation - it's a cultural bias that develops as societies embrace capitalism.

Social forces encourage people to engage in profitable activities like media consumption over unprofitable activities like community engagement, and the transient and impersonal nature of employment prevents people from easily making connections in the place they spend most of their time around others.

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#79

Post by openknot »

whatshisface wrote: post #18

This is a tragedy of the commons scenario that will ultimately lead to people being less friendly. Right now it's assumed that if someone comes up to ask you for something, they have a good reason.

Eh, it seems pretty harmless (and overall beneficial, if it helps people treat a psychological issue). The reason is legitimately good, as it's indirectly helping a person overcome an issue.

The favors seem harmless, with examples from the article including asking to try someone's sunglasses or to meditate with someone. Activities like these are also a part of exposure therapy for people with anxiety and/or a speech disorder.

Separately, though this depends on your location, I already disbelieve that someone asking me for something has a good reason (which is a common attitude in dense cities). I immediately assume they're trying to pull a scam or sell me something, and most of the time, I'm correct. (A funny example of this attitude is one of the top posts on r/AskNYC, though I'm not based there [0].) If someone were to approach me just as an exercise to address a psychological issue, that would be a far better outcome than what I would expect.

[0] "Millionth Cyclist on Manhattan Bridge" https://old.reddit.com/r/AskNYC/comments/dk76kv/millionth_cy...

Re: Rejection Therapy (2011)

#80

Post by cobertos »

dtrent wrote: post #73
olyjohn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that you should never interact with strangers because you might make them anxious? There's probably tons of things that can make people anxious. I'm not going to lock myself in the house to avoid making others anxious. As a socially anxious person myself, I would love for someone to start the conversation with me.

No. I'm saying you shouldn't deceptively use people for your personal benefit by interrupting whatever they're doing with a pretextual request as a form of therapy for yourself. I hear you--I dealt with social anxiety severely for many years and still do to a lesser extent. But nothing about this justifies cynically exploiting people under false pretenses for selfish ends. If you want to talk to strangers, great! Jus…

Perhaps the methodologies in the article itself are too abrasive (the specific conversation topics used), and I could see taking the side that, yeah, okay, there's some critique here.

But the issue of not communicating for selfish ends seems, not possible. Isn't all conversation, in some form, selfish? You're wanting information from other people (how their day was, what they're interested in), you want to vent about a topic, you want to communicate something that excites yourself and feel a connection, you want to get information for certain actionable issues. Even a purely altruistic use of listening to someone in need has its own selfish motivations, to strengthen a friendship, or to feel good about helping someone else (why do we help people in the first place? Does it feel good to follow our own principles?). There's definitely a spectrum there, and us, trying to perceive someone else's intent, is the framing that would make it right/wrong.

Post reply on HN