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

211–220 of 406 posts

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#211

Post by card_zero »

pjc50 wrote: post #197
sentinelsignal wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it's an exaggeration of the "city effect": the denser an environment is, the more likely it is that people who see you out to talk to you are going to have a negative agenda, because everyone else is trying to keep their head down. If you meet a stranger at the North Pole, where you're the only two humans around, you're going to talk to them. If you meet a stranger in a remote village, you're probably going t…

What if you meet them in a remote corner of an unpopular online RPG?

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#212

Post by dahart »

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…

Ads are vying for attention, true! I usually dislike commercial ads as much as anyone, especially online advertising, especially forced ads that block the thing I’m there for. That said, I don’t buy that they attack my agency and sovereignty, that’s a bit of a stretch. Online, a lot of free content comes with ads, and nobody’s forcing me to choose free content, so online at least I can avoid a lot of ads by avoiding the free content that comes with ads. When I’m not online, ads like posters or billboards rarely if ever block me in any way.

HN comments are also vying for our attention and pushing narratives, so are they ads and are they a personal attack? Usually not for money, but you didn’t make a distinction and GP comment was pointing at ads like posters for free community events. The community dance poster does want your attention, of course, but is it an evil personal attack, or just information that you can do as you please with or ignore? Is it sometimes something you did want to know, and advertises something you would like?

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#213

Post by eggbrain »

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…

There's also the magnitude of a negative interaction as well to consider.

If I have 99 great interactions with someone, but one REALLY bad interaction (they insult me deeply, or say something irredeemable), that can also sour the whole relationship.

It would be interesting to research commonalities amongst bad interactions -- are there patterns that emerge from certain personality types, politics, etc? What about a few "sour" people that will take any interaction and make it bad regardless of matchup -- if we removed them from the interaction pool, do the stats suddenly adjust quickly?

In my mind this would have big implications for social media sites -- not that all bad interactions need to be quelled, but if you are trying to keep conversations civil, attempt to implement X strategy or Y strategy.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#214

Post by randerson »

koliber wrote: post #188
barrkel wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 atte…

If I wanted notices about fundraisers it should be because I signed up for them.

If I want to know about concerts I would've subscribed to a feed.

If I wanted to help my cousin find a used car I'd actively go searching for one.

If I have a problem in need of a solution, I'll search for it.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#215

Post by fauria »

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 also the interesting effect that people will give you their innermost secrets, knowing you won't tell anyone

This is exactly what David Choe says in this interview: https://youtu.be/HrBhuzHHlhQ?t=127

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#216

Post by bityard »

koliber wrote: post #73
999900000999 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had a chat about this with a friend yesterday. In richer societies you can afford to be alone. This isn't good for tribal beings, humans didn't evolve as lone wolves. Even something as cooking for more than one person involves so much interaction. At the lower end of the global income scale , you can't afford to be alone in your giant house. You might need to share communal goods. Not everyone, but just having a role…

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…

You are perfectly describing another extremely common advertising tactic: fear of missing out (FOMO). The reality is that 3/4 of these are things you did not actually need or want, which is exactly why advertising exists. There are many more products and services available for purchase than any of us can afford, and all of them are actively trying to convince you that _theirs_ should be the one you agree to part with your money for.

Think of it this way: If you ACTUALLY wanted to go to that concert, you would have looked up the tour dates for the band six months ago. If you ACTUALLY needed the cheap item on sale, you would have already been looking for it at the time. If the food at that restaurant was ACTUALLY that good, you would have not forgotten about it.

There are probably hundreds of tools for "easily finding a time for a meeting" that you can buy online, so if you are looking solely at advertising to make your decision, you are likely paying more because the one you picked has an advertising budget that must be recouped. (I personally would have just asked my friends and colleagues what they use.)

These examples are firmly classified as "impulse purchases" which can be fine if your finances are in good enough shape that you have disposable income. Pretty common in the tech industry I guess, but vanishingly rare everywhere else in the world.

Most middle class households in the US pretend they have lots of disposable income, but they are setting themselves up for working their entire lives by saving/investing nothing in their most productive years. These are VICTIMS of advertising because they are constantly told by television, radio, and social media that they need to spend their money on all these wonderful advertised products that will solve all their problems or else they are not _really_ living life. Which is of course total horseshit.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#217

Post by mindslight »

koliber wrote: post #188
barrkel wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 atte…

All of that is true for all web ads. The friendly types of ads you're describing only work as offline ads.

If I am online I don't want any of that offline context following me around at the behest of a creepy surveillance industry. A web page knowing what is local to me or what I might be interested in is a bug. Frankly I categorize it in the realm of security vulnerabilities.

And that's still putting aside the question of why I would want to spend time/attention looking at any online ads. The ad for the local concert stuck on a bulletin board can be read while waiting for a burrito if I would otherwise be spacing out, or it can be ignored if I'm thinking about something else or otherwise don't feel like taking new input on new topics. Whereas web page ads are interspersed with what I'm already trying to do - it's like if I went to grab my burrito and the guy gave me a 30 second elevator pitch before he'd hand it over.

Whereas the alternative for online ads is blank 'white' space. If I am online, I'm positively engaged in doing something else. If I'm interested in local concert listings, then I will purposefully check out concert listings.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#218

Post by 7e »

This is interesting, but I’m curious how much of the effect is due to getting paid $15, and how much the data was affected by the fact that everyone was isolated in COVID lockdown at the time.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#219

Post by 9rx »

federiconafria wrote: post #84
rahulnair23 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isolating tech goes earlier than that. I know all my neighbours in my block who walk, cycle, or take the bus. Repeated interactions. The ones who take the elevator to the basement car park are the ones I never cross paths with.

That's what I was thinking, if social media was not there, would we be more social? Or is it really the fact that our necessities can be covered without being social the real "problem".

I expect the latter. Social media isn't social in any meaningful sense. It is more like an interactive diary or interactive television. Any human involvement behind the scenes is merely an implementation detail — and with the way AI is going, an implementation detail that may not even remain for much longer. Social media may reduce overall social interaction, but only in the same way that reading books reduced social interaction. There is only so much time in the day; but that doesn't make all uses of time equivalent.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#220

Post by koliber »

bityard wrote: post #216
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…

You are perfectly describing another extremely common advertising tactic: fear of missing out (FOMO). The reality is that 3/4 of these are things you did not actually need or want, which is exactly why advertising exists. There are many more products and services available for purchase than any of us can afford, and all of them are actively trying to convince you that _theirs_ should be the one you agree to part with…

> If you ACTUALLY wanted to go to that concert, you would have looked up the tour dates for the band six months ago

I am lazy, am not a super-fan and don't follow any bands, but if someone who I kind of enjoy is playing in town, I appreciate hearing about it.

> There are probably hundreds of tools for "easily finding a time for a meeting" that you can buy online

Here's the rub: there was a time where I was not aware of the fact that this class of tools existed! I learned about it through an ad.

The assumption that I see repeatedly is that we think that we know what we want. If we really strongly desire something, that might be more true. However, there are times where we are not even aware that we *can* want something. I did not know I can want a meeting scheduling assistant because I did not know that such software even existed. I did not know that I *can* want to attend a concert because I did not know the band was playing in town. Advertising enabled me to want something.

It's humbling to realize how much I don't know. I appreciate all the ways that the world let's me know about things, even if it comes from a marketing department.

Post reply on HN