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

321–330 of 406 posts

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#321

Post by andrepd »

qcnguy wrote: post #309
Ukv wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are pretty rational. When you find a lot of people doing something that looks irrational and there isn't a clear link to ideology or coercion, then it probably makes sense given information you don't have. It can be in people's/companies' rational self-interest to act in a way that is detrimental to society as a whole. We can recognize harmful behaviour and legislate such that it's no longer profitable, but…

It's extremely rare to find people who aren't criminals yet engaged in behavior that's genuinely detrimental to everyone else. The world isn't new and the obviously unacceptable behaviors have all been forbidden for thousands of years. That's why when people talk about stuff that's detrimental to "society", they are usually trying to claim that their personal preferences are more universal than they actually are. It'…

> It's extremely rare to find people who aren't criminals yet engaged in behavior that's genuinely detrimental to everyone else.

This is such a wild thing to say. I thought it was evident that people can be bastards and do terrible things entirely inside the law, yet here we are.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#322

Post by gwd »

hitekker wrote: post #320
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…

Absolutely true. Another angle that goes unmentioned: "the more you know someone, the less you like them." Most strangers in 30 minutes won't show off their ugly side. It takes a lot longer for those rough edges to come out, and for the really bad parts to surface in human relationships. For some people, we can look past that. For most others, our interactions would not be so positive.

> "the more you know someone, the less you like them."

That is completely the opposite of my experience. Even the handful of people who, after I got to know them, turned out to be unprincipled or toxic, I actually liked them as people and were kind of sad that they were the way they were. Their negative qualities were a mar on the their individual beauty.

There are certainly people in whom, after a relatively brief interaction, I didn't manage to see anything I liked. But I can't think of a single person whom, after seeing something to like, thereafter didn't see anything to like. Their ugly side may have made me want to avoid interacting with them as a whole, but it never completely eclipsed their good side.

For me, nearly all negative interactions come from not being able to get past various masks to see the interesting part of them or vice versa.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#324

Post by sixothree »

istjohn wrote: post #307
sixothree wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. I really hate saying this, but I live in the Deep South and people here can quite repulsive under the veneer of manners. The amount of hate, anger towards people different from them, and just rampant racism is quite difficult to deal with. And these are things that get exposed when having these conversation…

Yes, moral injury. Thanks for giving me a new way to frame that experience. The natural impulse to be sociable and get along with people combined with minor insecurity or social anxiety has led to social experiences that when I reflect on them, I can only cringe in shame at my timid response to some awful statements.

It's not like you have a lot of options. You won't be changing these people. It's not your job. But you do need to protect yourself.

It is okay to interrupt them and walk away, especially to any stranger or faint acquaintance. And to say "I'm not sure I agree with that" and let them keep talking will at least let them know where you stand.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#325

Post by kortilla »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #317
RataNova wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online, it feels like we're all half-performing for an invisible audience, so the incentives skew toward snark or point-scoring. In person, there's no scoreboard, just two humans trying to get through the moment together

An interesting "control case" is random-chat websites like Omegle. I spent many many hours on that site before it shut down. Omegle pairs you up with a single random stranger, so there's no audience. I typically used it in text-only mode, so there's no face-to-face communication either. I'd say my experience was closer to the "30 minutes with a stranger" study than it was to modern social media. It was fairly common…

Point scoring isn’t referring to literal points. A better term might be “dunking on someone”.

The same thing happens in social circles in a school. Kids are more likely to make fun of and ridicule other kids when they have an audience to show off to.

I don’t think the anonymous nature helps either. Because the person doing the ridiculing is looking for validation that they are indeed correct and the subject is an idiot, therefore the critic gets to feel good about being smarter than their victim.

So the only dynamic required is just someone telling you how smart you are when you cut someone down. Whether that’s upvotes, or just someone commenting in agreement, it doesn’t matter.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#326

Post by altruios »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #285
altruios wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that removing an emotional connection removes emotional responses of hate and wild dehumanization. I would categorize all such interactions as emotional. I argue that it is in fact the opposite: Having no analytical consideration for how another human might respond enflames emotions, not dampens them. It's called flame wars, not analytical wars.

It’s emotional connection that I’m talking about. I feel that you are referring to the inwardly-focused thing that happens when we lose connection. The analytical thing is the loss of emotional connection.

Do you mean empathy, by emotional connection?

If that is the case: I disagree that rage is the natural response to a loss of empathy AND switching to an analytical mode of thinking. I don't think rage (an emotion) stems from analytical thinking. Loss of empathy may be a required precursor to rage comments, but I don't see how analytical thinking fits anywhere in there. And if analytical thinking is a function of time: I would expect to find calmer comments after deliberate thought.

It would be testable - if you had the data - if it was the case that rage comments are thought out, or spur of the moment. I'm betting on the latter. Rage never seems well thought out to me.

If I misread your comment, I am sorry in advance.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#327

Post by balamatom »

ipaddr wrote: post #164
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…

Talk to strangers it has never gone wrong for me and I even met a serial killer who killed a lot of women who asked how I would dispose of a body. So much to unpack. You got lucky if you were a woman you probably would have had a poor outcome. I would prefer a rude online person who is petty vs a serial killer wanting advice on how to get rid of the body.

Get the best of both worlds: meet rude petty people afk!

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#328

Post by arccy »

tidbeck wrote: post #132
arccy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use a sane browser, the page will have a scrollbar indicator on the right?

I have (Firefox on macOS), still easy to miss.

On chrome the scroll bar is very visible.

I don't think you can blame Chrome for this... this is just bad design by Firefox.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#329

Post by kortilla »

ryandv wrote: post #265
justonceokay wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The projecting looks like it goes both ways

[flagged]

There is a lot of racism in your modeling of humanity. You should introspect and determine if it’s beneficial to your life to dehumanize and classify people based on the color of their skin.

Re: 30 minutes with a stranger

#330

Post by mwcampbell »

api wrote: post #98
immibis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There used to be social networks . You'd tell the computer who you knew in real life and you could talk to them through the computer. Then it was social media . People could publish things and their friends would see what they did in a single feed. Like TV or radio media, it pushes info to you, about your friends. Lastly it was just media. It was the same feed pushing stuff to you, but it isn't your friends any more.…

The next step will be removing humans from the loop entirely, a feed of personalized AI generated slop engineered to keep you staring at it. YouTube and Facebook are almost turning into this organically. YouTube seems to be trying to fight it. Zuck seems to just not care anymore, generally. Eventually one will fully embrace it. Are there even any social networks anymore? Oddly enough as weird and cringe as it is I th…

> Are there even any social networks anymore?

Mastodon?

Post reply on HN