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

Stop making every conversation about yourself

thoguhts.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#141

Post by austin-cheney »

dragonwriter wrote: post #62
austin-cheney wrote: post #39

The described behaviors could be narcissism but are likely innocent ADHD. I have noticed that unmedicated highly ADHD persons will inject themselves into conversations they were never party to of close physical proximity and then redirect the conversation to their personal experiences. To the uninformed these behaviors look like narcissistic personality disorders, but they are not. They are instead multiple hyper-sti…

Also, related, is autism info dumping. (And, similarly, lots of people undiagnosed.)

I learned earlier this year what seems like autism to many people is just advanced ADHD. An autism diagnosis requires a psychological evaluation and consists of 3 parts of which one is centered solely upon social interaction adaptation. Unmedicated people with ADHD can have all of the characteristics of autism and still not achieve an autism diagnosis even with missing social skills for their age level. That’s unfortunate because delayed social skills will result in peer rejection which only increases the problem for young people.

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#142

Post by aurareturn »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #137
aurareturn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been tons of studies confirming what I wrote. In some studies, 100% of the women chose the muscular body type over the skinny type for an ideal male body. But yes, let's ignore all the research and basic instinct because you want to be politically correct.

And would you care to link to some of the tonnes of research? It already sounds dubious. Ideal is not the same as most attractive fire instance. But let's see the science you're basing your generalising statements on.

A quick Google search would yielded at least 10 studies. Here’s one.

https://news.griffith.edu.au/2017/12/13/upper-body-strength-...

>The results showed that it was possible to almost perfectly predict how attractive a man’s body is from three things: how physically strong he looks, how tall he is, and how lean he is. The effect of strength was so large that none of the 150 women in the study preferred weak men. Furthermore, looking strong was much more important for man’s attractiveness than being tall or lean.

>“The rated strength of a male body accounts for a full 70% of the variance in attractiveness,’’ Dr Sell said.

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#144

Post by mynameisvlad »

bobmaxup wrote: post #100
mynameisvlad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posts like this highlight that some people don’t know what is being a twat and what isn’t.

Likely because there is no absolute way people percieve eachother?

I mean, sure. I was just highlighting how little use the parent comment had.

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#145

Post by AlecSchueler »

aurareturn wrote: post #142
AlecSchueler wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And would you care to link to some of the tonnes of research? It already sounds dubious. Ideal is not the same as most attractive fire instance. But let's see the science you're basing your generalising statements on.

A quick Google search would yielded at least 10 studies. Here’s one. https://news.griffith.edu.au/2017/12/13/upper-body-strength-... >The results showed that it was possible to almost perfectly predict how attractive a man’s body is from three things: how physically strong he looks, how tall he is, and how lean he is. The effect of strength was so large that none of the 150 women in the study preferred weak men. Furt…

Yes but A) I wanted to be sure we were looking at the same research and B) everything I found looked at bad as this one.

Firstly the relationship between the strength of the men and the women's abilities to determine their strength is weakly correlated (r=0.33).

Secondly, the sample of women here are all around 21 years old and all study at the same university. I don't think we can extrapolate what "most women" find attractive from this.

Thirdly, the women are presented only with photographs of male upper bodies without faces. The study itself mentions that other research suggests many women prefer men with "weaker or more effeminate faces." I think it's also clear that styling, manner, expression, personality etc all play a party in attraction and move of that is accounted for in this study.

I also believe you or the reporter have misinterpreted something here. You said that none of the women preferred stronger men, but the study actually shows a correlation of 0.8. None of the women preferred more weak men more often than strong men but some of them did prefer some weak men over some strong men.

The study also points out that asking a woman how strong a man looked was a better indicator of how strong he was than asking her how attractive he was.

Note also the quality of the questions here. First the woman is asked to rate the strength of the man and then asked to rate his attractiveness. I'm not a psychologist but it feels like the study itself primes the person being tested to consider the correlation ahead of giving their answers, which strikes me as poor research design.

As a man surely you're aware that your tastes differ to other men's tastes. Consider how much the cultural standard for an ideal woman has changed within our lifetimes. A woman praised for being thicc in 2015 would be ridiculed during the years of heroin chic in 2005 and vice versa. It's clear that these things are very much affected by cultural norms, by age, etc. A test which doesn't attempt to account for this can't be used to extrapolate in the way you're doing.

Finally, you made the claim that women prefer a certain type of man because they want to feel protected. You said tonnes of studies supported this but the one you gave me has absolutely nothing in it that makes any reference to this supposition. What am I missing?

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#146

Post by slowhadoken »

DonHopkins wrote: post #90
slowhadoken wrote: post #26

Worse than that are people that turn a subject into an opportunity to talk about themself. It’s always the clue I’m talking to a narcissist. They’re always offended, demanding answers, rephrasing what you’ve said, attracting negative attention and blaming you for it.

I think the whole world is already extremely familiar with how Donald Trump thinks and acts and talks by now, and why he is such a horrible un-empathic person and a menace to society, who is absolutely unqualified to hold office. See? That wasn't about myself at all. That's how it's done.

It’s consumerisms effect on people in general. It drives them into lower states of consciousness. The ceiling for mindfulness becomes individualism, which is decent but ultimately a state of arrested development. David Foster Wallace cautioned the public about it.

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#147

Post by barryrandall »

uxp100 wrote: post #11
JR1427 wrote: post #8

Click on article. Discover I have to sign in to read. No thanks.

Are you sure, or is just the typical substack popover with the continue reading button? (It isn’t really worth going back for, very short with basically no content)

Is it even worth trying to differentiate? If you see a modal popover, just close the tab. If it was interesting, it'll get reposted somewhere without the modal.

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#148

Post by Quinzel »

Leo_Germond wrote: post #15
reedf1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful because mediation can easily become performative (even to oneself). I've noticed this in some of my highly conscientious colleagues. Maybe it's "grindset" ideaology, but capturing the "point" of meditation takes much more than a scheduled 6 minute breathing session at precisely the butt-crack of dawn.

6 minutes seems awfully short, I havent practiced meditation for a long time but my sessions where 20, 30 or 60 minutes long, it takes time for the mind to settle down and to benefit fully from flowing consciousness. Anything less would feel like a rush job, which is kinda paradoxical for meditation.

Did it take you a while to be able to meditate for 60 minutes??

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#149

Post by tragicfootball »

owenversteeg wrote: post #135
The_Colonel wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have friends that talk about themselves 75% of the conversation but nobody gives a shit because they’re interesting/funny/unusual/whatever and people like to be entertained. What if you're talking 75% of the conversation, but the content isn't particularly interesting/funny? Is that still fine? > Having a relaxed, natural conversation! “Have a few beers and relax and just talk normally” Where "natural" and "norma…

Natural is just that, natural. I have never met a human being alive that has never had a natural conversation and yes that includes people with strong social anxiety, autism, you name it. Maybe that’s when you talk to your mother, or when you’re drunk, or when you’re talking to your best friend, or you live in a basement and it’s some guy over voice chat in a game or whatever but I guarantee you have had at least one…

Pretty sure not everyone knows what "relax" means. People who overthink, people who go to therapy, people who have mental problems. Do you just tell them "come on, you KNOW what relax means!"

Even if you had a "natural convo" with them, you'll never know if they were STRUGGLING to have this "natural convo" with you.

I assume you work in software since this is HN. Never assume you know about your users. Please.

Re: Stop making every conversation about yourself

#150

Post by aurareturn »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #145
aurareturn wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick Google search would yielded at least 10 studies. Here’s one. https://news.griffith.edu.au/2017/12/13/upper-body-strength-... >The results showed that it was possible to almost perfectly predict how attractive a man’s body is from three things: how physically strong he looks, how tall he is, and how lean he is. The effect of strength was so large that none of the 150 women in the study preferred weak men. Furt…

Yes but A) I wanted to be sure we were looking at the same research and B) everything I found looked at bad as this one. Firstly the relationship between the strength of the men and the women's abilities to determine their strength is weakly correlated (r=0.33). Secondly, the sample of women here are all around 21 years old and all study at the same university. I don't think we can extrapolate what "most women" find…

Some women like a man with poop on top of his head more than without poop on top of his head.
Post reply on HN