Live data from Hacker News

The vital art of talking to strangers

economist.com

281–290 of 290 posts

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#281
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hypothesis is based on some utopian assumptions. I can't tell you how many people whose views or mannerisms I hate, and who I can't stand being around. Forcing me to eat with anyone, let alone strangers, would only make me dislike them more and cause tension. My utopian solution is for people to have more space and be farther apart, rather than everybody crammed up in cities.

We’re all different and if this is who you are/how you’re most comfortable, congratulations on figuring yourself out. My experience is different than yours - people are tremendously interesting, especially over a meal. I’m not sure that anyone involved in this is making utopian assumptions. Rather, we’re all different and just know ourselves. I’m likely as ‘correct’ as you are - we’ve both figured out how we’re happi…

I don't quite see how people being interesting relates to the thread. I said that forced dinners with strangers is bad, in response to a comment that said it's good. You then responded saying people are interesting. My comment about utopianism isn't that I think it's utopian to believe people are interesting, it's that I think it's utopian to believe that forcing strangers to interact is necessarily constructive.

As to your point itself, I would say I find most people painfully uninteresting. I once read that humans are generally interested in people or objects, and I'm much more interested in objects. This has naturally developed into life choices that minimize my interaction with people (besides loved ones) like working in software and having interests I can pursue by myself (rock climbing, studying languages, lifting weights). My mid-term life goal is to buy a remote-ish house in a low-population density state with multiple acres and work remotely so I can ideally go days without seeing another human. My dream would be to own and live in the middle of a forest or on a mountain so I could go weeks or months without seeing another human (again, besides my loved ones). If you're the opposite, then I agree we're just different and I hope you're able to achieve your version of an ideal lifestyle.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe if you're honest with yourself and follow the secular lines of reasoning you will arrive at deism pretty easily I think atheists are just people who refuse to accept the natural conclusions. So I don't see any need to hide your atheism really. We're all prone to folly, pride and irrationality and inconclusive thinking. Honestly, if an atheist came to my Church and was open about it, that's fine with me. I c…

Deism requires rejecting all rationality - it's literally the point of almost all religions. Secular lines of reasoning results in science and all of the progress that has come with it. Being honest with ourselves leads to an understanding that there is no evidence of any sort of a deity - it is when we are fearful that we reach out into the void looking for someone to help us.

> Secular lines of reasoning results in science and all of the progress that has come with it

Unless you have some unknown faith by which 'progress' is good, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion. Especially when various secular lines of reasonings reject 'progress' as a useful metric, or even a desirable thing at all.

> it is when we are fearful that we reach out into the void looking for someone to help us.

That is not true. A benevolent God is a requirement of Christianity being true. It is not a requirement of deism, which is simply the belief that there is a divine. You're conflating two things. IMO, that there is a divine is incredibly obvious. Christianity requires more of a stretch.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#283
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I too long for the days past when the US had less cultural problems/conflicts due to high church attendance numbers.

There was a time in the US when good god fearin' church folk could gather together for traditional cultural expressions like extra-judicial lynchings of wrongly accused black men. You have to think America's lost something over the years. Thankfully.

We ban accounts that take HN threads further into flamewar hell like this, so please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time in the US when good god fearin' church folk could gather together for traditional cultural expressions like extra-judicial lynchings of wrongly accused black men. You have to think America's lost something over the years. Thankfully.

Oh please. It's not like only whites were part of churches. Blacks are more likely to be part of a church anyway. As usual, this is white people's faults.

We ban accounts that take HN threads further into flamewar hell like this, so please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry to have to say this but anyone who tells you you’re going to hell isn’t a Christian. I left the church over similar feelings so I identify. But for the record and the benefit of anyone else who might need to hear this, you’re not going to hell. What did Christ say about sin and repentance? Matthew 11:20-24: Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repe…

I realize you're probably a true believer, but for a lot of people there is no truth. The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people. I don't believe in your religion or any other, but even assuming it's true, the fidelity of the text is poor at best.

These are distinct issues:

> for a lot of people there is no truth

> I don't believe in your religion or any other

> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.

Briefly:

> for a lot of people there is no truth

A lot of people don't think clearly and have been misled. Do you and I exist in some form? Are we having a conversation? There: two truths. Dismissing truth as unknowable is a kind of, shall we say, cognitive off-ramp one may use when uninterested in working harder to find it. It's also a rhetorical trick used by some to shut down conversations they don't want others to have.

> I don't believe in your religion or any other

Framing philosophy as a matter of religion is a common way to dismiss a line of inquiry before it begins. It's also a rhetorical trick, a form of tribalism, a way to "other" those whom one disagrees with.

The modern distinction between religious and irreligious matters is ultimately a contrivance. The question of the nature of reality knows no such distinction.

What matters is not what label we apply to a philosophy; what matters is whether it is true. In this sense, everyone has a religion, whether or not they label it so. In modern terms, one may call it a worldview.

> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.

That is your subjective evaluation: "poor at best." How do you know this? What research have you done into the texts available? Have you studied the original languages and ancient texts? How do these texts compare with other ancient documents, ones whose authenticity is not commonly questioned in the field? Is it legitimate to boil down an entire field of research, practiced over thousands of years, to three dismissive words?

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deism requires rejecting all rationality - it's literally the point of almost all religions. Secular lines of reasoning results in science and all of the progress that has come with it. Being honest with ourselves leads to an understanding that there is no evidence of any sort of a deity - it is when we are fearful that we reach out into the void looking for someone to help us.

> Secular lines of reasoning results in science and all of the progress that has come with it Unless you have some unknown faith by which 'progress' is good, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion. Especially when various secular lines of reasonings reject 'progress' as a useful metric, or even a desirable thing at all. > it is when we are fearful that we reach out into the void looking for someone to help…

> IMO, that there is a divine is incredibly obvious.

There is absolutely no evidence of such a thing, in fact, all major religions require that lack of evidence, it's a fundamental feature of them.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures. You're under a false impression, and are spreading a myth [0][1]. In fact, your claim is exactly backwards: Certain laypeople (you seem to be among them) demand more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for other famous people of antiquity. > And that the Bible…

My understanding is based on the wikipedia article called "Historical Jesus", which confusingly is different than the "Historicity of Jesus". Also, a book I read a long time ago, called "Who Wrote the Bible". I'm not purporting to be a biblical scholar, but it's clear to me that the evidence for Jesus is not as strong as, say, the evidence for Julius Caesar. The fact that there is no direct evidence points to at leas…

What do you mean by "physical evidence"? As Bart D. Ehrman (a non-Christian New Testament scholar) explains:

The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.

Who was the most important Jewish figure in Palestine for the entire first century (who wasn’t, say, the actual king)? There’s no doubt. Flavius Josephus. Highly placed aristocrat, military leader, political figure, eventually made a court historian by the Roman emperor himself, and our principal source of information for the Jewish people and history at the time. And how much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? None.

So too, who is (by far) the best known Jewish cultural figure outside of Palestine in the first century? Again, not much competition: Philo of Alexandria, brilliant philosopher, massively prolific author, political activist, known even at the highest levels of government in Rome itself. How much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? Again, none. The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.

The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. "These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information," Ehrman says. "But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases."

Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.

Regarding the apocryphal texts, they're called apocryphal for a reason, and do not form part of the Biblical canon.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#289
post #62

As a related anecdote, I used to perform experiments by dressing in particular ways while going out in public. If I wore a nice blazer-type jacket and generally looked more preppy, I would definitely notice different behavior as when I might dress with with a t shirt and long sleeve over it with long sleeve shirt unbuttoned. I attribute this partly to conditioning via TV show characters etc.

Interesting attribution to conditioning via TV show characters. What was the difference in people's behaviours?

Similar to the Apple Store experience above, mostly but even in the way people will look at you both good/bad

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#290

One's life completely opens up when one realizes that it's possible to talk to strangers and meet friends / romantic partners anywhere, anytime, in any situation. Sure most interactions may not amount to much other than sharing a moment, but every now and then you make a friend or even romantic partner that makes it all worth it and then some. Walking outside goes from being what may have been a mere mundane chore, t…

I like your approach and I agree that it should lead to better outcomes. Sadly for the less socially adept, it’s not clear to me how to get social interactions from random strangers without having both sides of the equation be uncomfortable. My experience of trying this approach just ends with two uncomfortable people and leaves me with another social misstep to haunt me at night. Since it sounds like you want to sha…

I wouldn't consider myself socially adept. At least if there's any adeptness at all, it's certainly not genetic or any natural skill, but from years of deliberate practice.

> both sides of the equation be uncomfortable.

Why should you feel uncomfortable? Unless you have malintentions, which doesn't seem to be the case, there's no reason to feel uncomfortable. You're simply expressing yourself, spreading positivity, and giving the stranger the opportunity to connect with you.

I'm a digital nomad who generally travels solo to countries, so I have no choice if I want to meet people since everyone is initially a stranger. A couple weeks ago when I entered the locker room of a gym a man saw that I was looking for something, and told me "the bathroom's that way". After returning I said "thanks" and went to my locker. The interaction could've easily ended there, and my old self would've left it at that, but then I decided to ask him where he's from. Turned out to be a really friendly guy. A couple days later I invited him out to watch a game with some of my friends, we partied till 5am or so and had a great time, and spoke about potentially traveling together to some nearby countries.

As a single man (who hates online dating), when I see a particularly pretty girl my type I'd like to meet who seems approachable, I approach. Sure most interactions won't amount to anything - maybe she has a boyfriend/husband, maybe she's not interested, maybe she's not in the mood, etc. That's fine. And by the way, maybe I won't even be interested anymore after talking to her because attraction is way more than just physical. It's a two way street. (and don't buy into this crap that politely approaching someone is "street harrassment". One of my best friends met his wife on a subway train). No need to come up with some elaborate pickup lines or whatever, just be direct and upfront with your intentions, and then say whatever's on your mind. If they don't want to talk to you, that's their right - you have no entitlement to the attention of some random stranger, so don't take it personally.

In any case, it's not rocket science, and there's no need to overcomplicate it. You don't have to try to fit some certain mold. Just be authentic and genuine, and most people will appreciate you for it (so long as you're not being like an a*hole or something obviously). One of my friends who is the best at this is one of the quirkiest guys I know with interests and humor that many might consider esoteric, but he's successful because he's genuine and confident in his own skin.

It's probably going to feel awkward at first. Just take it all in, and focus on the process. Every step out of the comfort zone is a win. The "outcome" itself is out of your control and subject to extreme randomness so don't focus too much on that. The more you do, the more confident you'll be and the easier it'll get, until the point where it's no longer a "thing" in your brain, just like you probably don't get nervous talking to your parents/siblings.

> Where do you hangout that you can just casually approach and start chatting up people?

Anywhere is fair game - parks, cafes, gym, street, whatever. Just be respectful.

Post reply on HN