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

30 minutes with a stranger

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 406 posts

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#181

Post by trueismywork »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #180
lordnacho wrote: post #115

It's the internet. When you talk to people online, it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens. But it's much easier to talk online, so people get the wrong impression. You should talk to strangers. It's never gone wrong for me. Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. There's also the interesting…

There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime). It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotion…

In a more poor society, It is a false nicety. These are the people who wouldn't blink twice while killing you as a part of the mob.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#182

Post by stavros »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #175
stavros wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't afford to be alone in any society. Not in the monetary sense, but in the sense that it will make you depressed. The fact that many people don't realize this is troubling.

While very true, highly communal societies can be extremely toxic too. Imagine not being able to get a job and having everyone actually gossiping about you. Pretty much middle school fears realized.

I don't have to imagine! I grew up in a village. On the whole, I think it's a plus, but you're right that this happens a lot.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#183

Post by sentinelsignal »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #180
lordnacho wrote: post #115

It's the internet. When you talk to people online, it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens. But it's much easier to talk online, so people get the wrong impression. You should talk to strangers. It's never gone wrong for me. Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. There's also the interesting…

There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime). It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotion…

The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#184

Post by 1970-01-01 »

saberience wrote: post #68

I know it's supposed to be fancy and cool looking but this sort of website design where you have to scroll and then the whole screen animates really bothers me. It actually gives me a headache to try and follow it versus normal scrolling behaviour and text. As soon as I start scrolling down and I can't scroll normally and images and text start flying around I feel a disturbing feeling in my head and lose concentratio…

It's art. They did it because they wanted it to be seen exactly this way. Accessibility was not the goal.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#185

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

sentinelsignal wrote: post #183
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime). It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotion…

The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?

I think that part of it, is that when we are engaging with people in realtime (especially face to face), our emotional driver is behind the wheel, and when there's a pause between responses, our analytical driver has time to grab the wheel, and that's where the "dehumanization" comes from.

That's not always a bad thing. In emotionally-charged situations, that "few seconds of consideration" can help stabilize the interaction.

People claim that it's the lack of consequences, and illusion of safety, but I feel as if it's really the emotional disconnection that does it.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#186

Post by lordnacho »

sentinelsignal wrote: post #183
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime). It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotion…

The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?

Anonymity is one aspect, for sure. But also, people often have not taken in the lesson of interpreting generously. They take the worst interpretation of the words, and often add a few imagined things that were never written (oh you like healthcare, you communist?). This is worse in written form because the feedback loop is longer, but it being written makes it feel like the author has had plenty of time to think about it.

Forums are also the kind of place that everyone thinks are populated by political bots. Believing every other comment is written in bad faith is going to change how you behave.

When you think of arguments as a kind of battle, you end up forgetting the person on the other side.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#187

Post by 9rx »

sentinelsignal wrote: post #183
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime). It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotion…

The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?

Dehumanization is a poor framing, really. It was never humanized in the first place.

Sure, those of us who have a technical understanding understand that it is likely that there are humans involved as an implementation detail, but from the user perspective there is no other human to be seen. If the technical backend were replaced by a sufficiently capable LLM (or whatever technology) absolutely nothing about the user experience would change. From the user perspective, it is a solitary activity.

Human interaction hasn't gone away. Online discussion is a different tool for a different job.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#188

Post by koliber »

barrkel wrote: post #138
koliber wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with 99.9% of what you wrote. It’s presented very clearly. We are social animals even if we don’t like to admit it. A while ago I would say I agree 100%, but more recently I learned that ads have value. Therefore i can’t agree with the final sentence in this post. It’s not easy to recognize but I’d like to try to share how I see it now. Any time you think or say one of these things, it means that someone did…

Ads are agents in a zero-sum war for your attention. If you have focus, if you're not aimlessly wandering around, ads try to distract you. They attack your personal agency and sovereignty, trying to divert you from what you were doing, to pay attention to what they're pushing. Because they're in a zero sum competition, the dynamics are to escalate. There's only so much inventory, and the winners of the bids for your…

All of this is true for a large portion of web ads.

Then there is the ad for your kids' school fundraiser.

Or the ad for a used car that your cousin would love.

Or the poster for the concert at your local community hall.

These ads also are "trying to divert you from what you were doing, to pay attention to what they're pushing".

Yet these feel ads differently despite also being "agents in a zero-sum war for your attention".

I don't think people appreciate how much good and positive advertising exists because they are conditioned and on-guard for the kinds of ads that you describe.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#189

Post by magicmicah85 »

Very cool design. I would love to listen to those conversations that grinded to a halt. I saw one profile where their affect before was 9, at beginning was 6, by middle and end was a 1. Their partner went from 7 to 8. Is it miscommunication or misunderstanding of how they were perceived?

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#190

Post by namuol »

gwd wrote: post #34

One of the problems with their "better / worse" statistics: Bad interactions tend to outweigh good interactions. I think the rule of thumb is that 4:1 good/bad ratio in a relationship is "breakeven" where the relationship will stay neutral; higher than that and things get better, lower than that and things go south. So if you could talk to a stranger, and there's only a 20% chance you'll feel worse, a lot of people w…

I think it depends on what you’re used to. If you’re in an abusive relationship or socially isolated, a single positive social interaction can feel like a breakthrough.
Post reply on HN