Good conversations have lots of doorknobs (2022) • Hacker News Board

Re: Good conversations have lots of doorknobs (2022)

#21

Post by salicaster » Sun, Dec 14, 2025, 2:23 AM UTC

uniq7 wrote: post #18

salicaster wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice that both your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you. If that is your idea of socializing, I would come to the same conclusion. As cliche as it is, find things in others that genuinely interest you. And don't expect it be a fruitful experience. There are so many reasons the socializing ritual can end up being unfulfilling.

Did you notice? People tends to interpret others in the worst possible way; even you inferred from my two short sentences that I am a controlling person. I'm not offended, it's just funny, and kind of reinforces my previous point. Regarding your interpretation, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a huge difference between influencing someone to do what you want and simply being careful with what you say in orde…

There's some good irony in your reply and I think we're both laughing for different reasons. I have no intention in being combative, but it is you who interpreted my post in the worst possible way.

I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person. I was only referring to your fixation on their reactions and feelings.

Re: Good conversations have lots of doorknobs (2022)

#22

Post by uniq7 » Sun, Dec 14, 2025, 9:56 AM UTC

salicaster wrote: post #21

uniq7 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you notice? People tends to interpret others in the worst possible way; even you inferred from my two short sentences that I am a controlling person. I'm not offended, it's just funny, and kind of reinforces my previous point. Regarding your interpretation, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a huge difference between influencing someone to do what you want and simply being careful with what you say in orde…

There's some good irony in your reply and I think we're both laughing for different reasons. I have no intention in being combative, but it is you who interpreted my post in the worst possible way. I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person. I was only referring to your fixation on their reactions and feelings.

> I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person

You literally said:

> your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you

Although the tone you hear in your head may sound stoic, I don't think that stance is neutral at all. You didn't say "I think your sentences..." or "Looks like your sentences..."; you made a subjective affirmation based on two sentences I said about people's feelings in conversations, on a thread about people's feelings in conversations, on a post about people's feelings in conversations.

If my two sentences in this context really mean that I am fixated, then everyone in HN is fixated on whatever they write, which is ridiculous.

I'm starting to think you are just trying to troll me.

Re: Good conversations have lots of doorknobs (2022)

#23

Post by ninalanyon » Sun, Dec 14, 2025, 9:02 PM UTC

devinplatt wrote: post #12

markhahn wrote: post #11

why not use "affordances"? it's the correct word, and even though it's low-frequency, wouldn't that pull people into the article?

The article mentions affordances. I assume the title uses doorknobs because that's a more familiar word as you point out.

Doorknobs is a more commonly used word I'll grant you, but it meant noting to me at all whereas affordances would have.

Re: Good conversations have lots of doorknobs (2022)

#24

Post by markhahn » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 5:18 AM UTC

devinplatt wrote: post #12

markhahn wrote: post #11

why not use "affordances"? it's the correct word, and even though it's low-frequency, wouldn't that pull people into the article?

The article mentions affordances. I assume the title uses doorknobs because that's a more familiar word as you point out.

no, "doorknob" is merely higher-frequency due to its other meanings. it's never used in this context - probably because it's a terrible affordance (see Norman - push or pull?)