81–90 of 131 posts
"Some people find some other people more likable when those people speak more in a conversation, but drawing any other conclusions than that would be fantastically stupid on its own merits, and doubly so given the recent crises in this field." There, I fixed it for you.
"Some people find some other people more likable when those people speak more in a conversation, but drawing any other conclusions than that would be fantastically stupid on its own merits, and doubly so given the recent crises in this field." There, I fixed it for you.
Is that how you do science? I can't make my predictions 100% accurate, therefore there's nothing I can say about the subject at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
An attempt by DARPA to evaluate the various fields of social science found that only about half of the papers they tried to replicate actually gave the same results when tried a second time. People in those fields could give pretty good predictions of which papers would replicate, but the publishing apparatus doesn't seem to have much in the way of quality control to filter out the papers everyone knows are junk -- nor do people cite the junk studies less often. Here's a very readable writeup with details:
https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with...
What's more, correlational studies have another problem: even a consistent-but-small correlation between two variables usually is non-causal when you're looking at sufficiently complicated webs of cause and effect, e.g. the ones found in the social sciences like psychology. The math here has some profound, dire implications, and I found this article to be a huge eye-opener:
"Some people find some other people more likable when those people speak more in a conversation, but drawing any other conclusions than that would be fantastically stupid on its own merits, and doubly so given the recent crises in this field." There, I fixed it for you.
" Don't be snarky. " " Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Ex: We have decades of research on ASD and ADHD that have utterly failed to serve the very large number of people who don’t fit the profile of “young white American boy” to whom that research actually applied because the conclusions were wrongly assumed to generalize to the wider population.
It’s not a new problem, and there is no justification whatsoever for being oblivious to that problem in this field anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the book itself addressed that point by suggesting that you try to find something to genuinely like about each person you engage with. The formulaic approach isn't meant to be the end goal, it's just a way to go from zero to some sort of common ground, from which a genuine connection can develop. It's really helpful for people who are totally inept at human conversation (like me) but it's just a starting place. N…
Dale's book is generic heuristics, hacks, and common sense advice mixed. Nonviolent communication is more like cult/pseudoscience/horse manure mix.
But Dale's book helped me go from virtually no friends to having many treasured relationships in my life, across interests and divides that I never would've even bothered to have explore if not for that book. It made me receptive to actually getting to know people outside my interest groups, and was as illuminating as it was humbling. It was the book that helped me realize there was so much more to people than the tiny bubble I was in. What may be common advice was, to me at the time, completely unheard of to me. If your parents and social groups don't naturally teach you this stuff, and you're an introverted computer nerd, it's a whole lot better than nothing. Are there better books out there? I'd love to hear about them.
Nonviolent comms can definitely feel cult like and wishy-washy. But it's been tremendously helpful for me in engaging with people across ideological gaps (chasms these days). And it may have saved my life on occasions when conversations got especially heated and emotional and violence was a very real possibility. For all of its teletubby tendencies, in the real world, it is much more able to establish slash remind people of human connection than the bitter street protests we've seen over the past few years. Its underlying message is to simply seek common ground and work outwards from there to solve common problems, rather than digging further into ideological trenches and seeing everyone outside it as the enemy. That particular part isn't necessarily cultish. It's just really hard to practice in the heat of the moment, so the rest of the book is a bunch of deescalation techniques mixed with, yes, fluffy feel good stuff.
Shrug. Just my review as someone whose life and relationships were made much more enjoyable after those two books. Not because I can manipulate people (still can't and wouldn't even if I could), but because they opened ways of thinking and feeling about people that I didn't have before. Together they taught me way more respect and empathy for people outside of my own comfort, interest, and ideological zones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you got answered in downvotes I suspect the answer is "because people will switch languages on you"
I've recently seen many good and curious comments "answered in downvotes." Maybe I can't read the room, but why does that happen? Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?
"Contrary to people’s forecasts, they were more likable the more they spoke, and their partners formed global rather than differentiated impressions." In my experience, reticence to talk is mostly about fear of saying something stupid, which generally happens when you don't have anything to say but your trying to say something. Assigning people to talk for abitrary portions of the conversation might just cause you to…
Which is is when you can form an opinion for someone. Will they say something stupid or offensive? When people let their guard down is when you get a glimpse into them. Which I guess is why alcohol and similar substances have been used for centuries.
Being offensive certainly gives me a glimpse into the person but not in a good way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie Implementing the advice in this book too literally makes for very inauthentic sounding conversation. After reading this book, I found it easy to spot other people who had read it and were trying the techniques on me. For example, when someone uses my name 10 different times in a private conversation for no obvious reason, I have a good idea that they’…
I've also experienced this and I've mentioned it in comments here in the past. I once recommended the book to a (former) colleague and it was maddening to talk to this person after they finished it. FWIW, I'm also always on edge when I talk to someone who I know has read the Rosenberg non-violent communication book(s), so it's not just the books or it's contents but a certain personality type, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you got answered in downvotes I suspect the answer is "because people will switch languages on you"
I've recently seen many good and curious comments "answered in downvotes." Maybe I can't read the room, but why does that happen? Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?
I think that HN has more zealots, propagandists, shills, and others arguing in bad faith than it did ten years ago. And I think that many of us have grown less patient with posts that clearly seem to be grinding axes, pushing agendas, or arguing rather than listening. (I think dang would say that we shouldn't be like that, but my patience has limits. I admit that as a weakness in myself, but there it is.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've recently seen many good and curious comments "answered in downvotes." Maybe I can't read the room, but why does that happen? Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?
I'm guilty of one worded replies that get downvoted. I do get annoyed since I'm basically poking the parent for an explanation.
On the other hand, a low-effort, drive-by unsupported claim doesn't necessarily deserve great effort and eloquence in a response. Maybe we should be better than them, but we also all have limited energy.