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

Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

improveyoursocialskills.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 440 posts

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#411

Post by williamdclt »

0xffff2 wrote: post #239
cwkoss wrote: post #168

I read some "pick up artist" literature in college: about two thirds of it is misogynistic garbage, but the remainder has some good tips on general platonic social interaction (and a major issue with insecure men is learning to interact with women in a casual platonic way without acting odd and creepy because they are hoping for more). - If you aren't good at speaking in a captivating way, literally write out your be…

That really has to be one of the more ridiculous ice breakers I've ever seen. I'd ascribe about as much meaning to those supposed relationships as I would to a grocery store horoscope, and in much the same way. If you're inclined to do so, you can go back as you read the explanation of what each thing "means" and pick out all of the bits you agree with to convince yourself that it makes sense.

Obviously this isn't an accurate psychological test. Yet it's a very interesting social tool, because it's more subtle than it seems:

- First, the most shallow interpretation, it sorta works. Not really of course, but I could believe based on empirical evidence that the "mind projecting itself on abstract objects" isn't totally BS. - Second, when you get explained the supposed meanings of each element, you enter an introspective phase. You think about whether it does apply to you, "am I actually a fairly transparent person?", "do I expect my partner to be a part of me?". It doesn't really matter what you answered at first, it's your reflection about it that should lead to a mildly interesting self-questioning - Third, and that's what people good at "basic social skills" have understood, it doesn't even matter if you personally didn't get any insight on yourself, or even if nobody around did. It's a door-opener, a way to engage with people around you, to get personal with them. Is it a shallow outlook on them? Doesn't matter, it's a start, a bond that you can strengthen continuing the discussion.

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#413

Post by FaiderX »

rollerboi wrote: post #90
wallflower wrote: post #53

While some of you may make light of the fact that I am giving you advice, my single most important piece of advice to people who are highly analytical and/or always solving problems is to not give unsolicited advice to friends, family, acquaintances, or even strangers. People will ask for advice if they really want it. People are not “broken pieces of code” begging to be fixed. I’ve lost friends over this, until one…

I've been working on this since I noticed it in myself a few years back. It's really difficult because I'm the "problem-solver," but I'm also the person that people want to vent to. So I've come to realize - After a friend/coworker shares something that they're sad/angry about, my standard MO is: 1) Say something like "Wow, that must really feel terrible. I'm sorry to hear that!" (I always feel the need to add more t…

thank you for your advice, they were really helpful to me

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#414

Post by rmetzler »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #228
SkyBelow wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Most people don't want to talk code. Thus, given a demographic breakdown that relates neither positively nor negatively with talking code, one can assume the general pattern applies. Most old people don't want to talk code. Most young people don't want to talk code. Most left handed people don't want to talk code. None of these are discriminating. They are stating that a pattern true of the general population al…

I actually think most people do want to talk code. Specifically, how coding might work, or might not work. Whenever I bring up my software dev job, at least one person asks me what my day to day looks like, am I familiar with ML, do I know what blockchain is, etc. And then when I explain it, it comes off almost like revealing the man behind the curtain. Technology touches everyone. Of course they want to know about h…

I wonder where you live, because I don’t feel like this is the case for me at all. It could also be a thing that depends on the age of the person.

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#415

Post by arendtio »

manuel_w wrote: post #389
wallflower wrote: post #53

While some of you may make light of the fact that I am giving you advice, my single most important piece of advice to people who are highly analytical and/or always solving problems is to not give unsolicited advice to friends, family, acquaintances, or even strangers. People will ask for advice if they really want it. People are not “broken pieces of code” begging to be fixed. I’ve lost friends over this, until one…

Yes. "Ein ungefragter Rat ist ein Schlag." Unfortunately, in english, it doesn't rhyme that nicely: "An undemanded advice is a punch." (I seriously doubt that "undemanded" is the best translation for "ungefragt", but you get the idea.) When feel like people would benefit from advice to the extent that not giving it would be unfriendly/selfish/whatever itself, I try to follow following guidelines: * Refraining from us…

I know it as

"Ratschläge sind auch Schläge."

which could be translated as

"Advice is also punishment"

In German it becomes obvious as the word "Schläge" (punishment/beating/plural of punch) is part of the word "Ratschläge" (advice).

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#416

Post by [deleted] »

edjrage wrote: post #348
alexashka wrote: post #209

You can read all that, or, just spend some time around functional adults. These are problems born of children being stuck with other children and having little exposure to a variety of adults. We're much better at copying what others do, than internalizing rules spread out over 20+ pages (why is this done?)

In order to “just spend some time around functional adults”, you're expected to be “functional” yourself. If you don't have social skills, it's way harder to “just” do things around people, both because of your limitations and their expectations.

[deleted]

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#417

Post by [deleted] »

edjrage wrote: post #348
alexashka wrote: post #209

You can read all that, or, just spend some time around functional adults. These are problems born of children being stuck with other children and having little exposure to a variety of adults. We're much better at copying what others do, than internalizing rules spread out over 20+ pages (why is this done?)

In order to “just spend some time around functional adults”, you're expected to be “functional” yourself. If you don't have social skills, it's way harder to “just” do things around people, both because of your limitations and their expectations.

[deleted]

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#418

Post by 0xffff2 »

williamdclt wrote: post #411
0xffff2 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really has to be one of the more ridiculous ice breakers I've ever seen. I'd ascribe about as much meaning to those supposed relationships as I would to a grocery store horoscope, and in much the same way. If you're inclined to do so, you can go back as you read the explanation of what each thing "means" and pick out all of the bits you agree with to convince yourself that it makes sense.

Obviously this isn't an accurate psychological test. Yet it's a very interesting social tool, because it's more subtle than it seems: - First, the most shallow interpretation, it sorta works. Not really of course, but I could believe based on empirical evidence that the "mind projecting itself on abstract objects" isn't totally BS. - Second, when you get explained the supposed meanings of each element, you enter an i…

We obviously have different social circles. I know exactly two kinds of people. The first kind would openly mock me when I got to the "explaining what it all means" part (if they let me get that far at all). The second kind would eat this up and absolutely believe it to be some deep and accurate spiritual insight.

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#419

Post by SkyBelow »

bnjms wrote: post #293
SkyBelow wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because making broad assumptions about 50% of the population isn't a cool thing to do. Is it that those assumptions are not cool to make about 100% of the population either? Is it wrong of me to assume that the average person does not want to talk about code? Because if it isn't wrong to make the assumption about the average person, but it is wrong to make it about some subset, then isn't that, at its very core, tre…

> Because if it isn't wrong to make the assumption about the average person, but it is wrong to make it about some subset, then isn't that, at its very core, treating that demographic different than the average? No it is not in any meaningful way since the statement is true about both subsets as well as the average person set. The claim is no meaningful distinction is made by specifying the subset of women from all p…

>The claim is no meaningful distinction is made by specifying the subset of women from all people.

Unless the person was making the claim because that was the subset they were interested in dating, which is how I read the original statement. It was a generalization of all people, but in this case they were only concerned with how it applied to the subset of people they were interested in dating.

They could have avoided the whole problem by instead specifying "people I'm interested in dating", but one has to wonder the cost of having to take that level of care with one's words and the effect of this level of care being discriminatory in where it has to be applied.

Re: Basic Social Skills Guide (2012)

#420

Post by SkyBelow »

mcguire wrote: post #393
mcguire wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did the original comment specifically mention "most young women" rather than "most people"?

[Edit] One of the neat things about formal reasoning is that it forces you to be explicit about your assumptions. In this case, the original comment seems to be making the assumption that most HN types are heterosexual males and homosexual women, single and with poor social skills.

I took it to be a more personal statement, that they themselves fall into that classification and are thus making the statement from their own perspective.
Post reply on HN