The goal we all seek - liberation - is a distant one. That said I’m skeptical that UBI is the right way. UBI assumes and requires an elite ownership class and a powerful state to force them to share their profits. But as we’ve seen, such class members will organize to penetrate the state and contort it for their own ends. Thus any successful UBI will be a compromise or it will be dismantled by the powerful class that owns the economy.
In my mind, only community ownership of the means of production can truly achieve what we desire. Of course with all distant goals, it is hard to see how we get there. And to be clear I do not mean state ownership.
But I am curious, on my basic point of elite capture of the state, does that make sense?
I am struck that TFA’s title says UBI is “the only way to share”, amusing to me since literally directly sharing is another way. I understand we all have spooky ideas of what that means, but think for example of the concept of library economies. You borrow what you need, but you don’t own it nor have the right to destroy it. We share.
> UBI assumes and requires an elite ownership class and a powerful state to force them to share their profits.
It makes no assumption about an elite ownership class at all. It merely assumes profits, and rearranges how those profits are distributed (away from shareholders, towards labor). There is no need for community ownership of the means of production (though that might have some different benefits, along with some different disadvantages).
You need high marginal (or maybe not even marginal) corporate taxes and a committment to the concept of UBI. Who owns the companies, from the perspective of UBI, is immaterial.
Community ownership does not share the productivity in sector A with workers in sector B. UBI does.
Community ownership does share across sectors if the community owns both sectors. Why would it not?
Also, you haven't really answered the point. You may be able to get this established. But how do you keep it established? How do you keep the elite ownership class from dismantling it? (Based on historically observed behavior, the default assumption is that they will try.) If you don't have a plan that accounts for that, you don't really have a workable plan.
UBI finds broad appeal by liberals and the right, you can find right-wing people supporting it in this very thread who despise unions passionately, that should already tell you a lot.
It's effectively liberals seeking a liberal solution to mass starvation and obscene wealth inequality, they see a soon to be trillionaire like Musk alongside children starving on the street and try to find a solution within their narrow world view that demands the protection of capitalism, that's how it ends up so incoherent. It's same with the 'abundance movement' it's neoliberals seeking to fix neoliberalism with more neoliberalism.
Don't expect much clarity from these people, they are deeply confused and propagandized, to them their workplace is ought to be like family, collective bargaining is viewed as breaking the mutual trust you should have with your bosses. It's gibberish.
Yep I have an autonomous task where it has been running for 8 hours now and counting. It compacts context all the time. I’m pretty skeptical of the quality in long sessions like this so I have to run a follow on session to critically examine everything that was done. Long context will be great for this.
I get very useful code from long sessions. It’s all about having a framework of clear documentation, a clear multi-step plan including validation against docs and critical code reviews, acceptance criteria, and closed-loop debugging (it can launch/restsart the app, control it, and monitor logs)
I am heavily involved in developing those, and then routinely let opus run overnight and have either flawless or nearly flawless product in the morning.
I’m telling it to use red/green tdd [1] and it will write test that don’t fail and then says “ah the issue is already fixed” and then move on. You really have to watch it very closely. I’m having a huge problem with bad tests in my system despite a “governance model” that I always refer it to which requires red/green tdd.
Strong disagree. There absolutely are “more humane” methods but they are still not humane. Forced separation of mothers from their children (standard practice) and killing the animals before their natural death are two inhumane features of even “free range” practices.
There is no humane way to kill a creature against its will.
To be clear, free range represents a major improvement over the unconscionable horrors of factory farms, but it is not flatly “humane” without qualification.
Since their passengers (women in this case) on average earn less, that customer base would be less likely to drive up the price. Also probably only a small percentage of the customers would choose this.
After a bad breakup in 2015, I followed some advice from the socialskills subreddit to “talk to everyone” so that you get better at talking to women you might want to date. The advice was not to only talk to attractive people but everyone. The old man reading a Russian newspaper, the kid on bike doing tricks, people in the elevator.
I do that now and it brings me a lot of joy. Recently while leaving a botanical garden I spoke to a man who was excitedly looking for a few specific plants. He is a botanist (amateur? professional? unclear) and I enjoyed sharing in his passion for a moment. Then I saw a maintenance guy moving with great intention who took a moment to ask me and my family if we had a nice time. We did, and I asked him about the papers in his hand. “Gotta get approval for this purchase request asap.” He said. We talked a bit about how nice it is to work at such a beautiful place.
I highly recommend talking to strangers! People are lovely. Go out and try it.
The "Helping You Not Become Your Parents" commercials (from some insurance company I think) make me sad.
They're basically making fun of people for trying to connect.
I'm in a spot where I don't really bump into strangers much but, as a recovering introvert I've tried to talk to people like this and it feels AMAZING.
Like... irrational levels of amazing vibes.
It's so frustrating seeing my own kids be horrified by it and be hyper-introverted and disdainful of connecting with strangers.
Lessons you learn the hard way -- then fail to pass onto the next generation -- hurt.
> They're basically making fun of people for trying to connect.
I had the same thought. The clueless people turning into their parents are charming and genuine. The life coach guy is kind of a dick.
Reminds me of Apple's "I'm a PC, And I'm a Mac" ads from Apple. I always understood the point they were trying to make, but the PC character was so much more likable than the Mac.
Talking to strangers is actually kind of nice as an introvert, there is very low pressure as you have no obligation to the person and you can end the conversation at any time.
I find it much nicer than talking to friends of friends or the absolute worst for me... the boyfriends of my girlfriends friends. You are getting shoved together into a forced interaction that you know will be asked about in the near future.
This is why I love IT conferences. I can chat up random strangers about topics that we're clearly both interested in. The vendors also send the most extroverted folks who are skilled in engaging introverted nerds. It's a great way for introverts to level up their social skills.
And the best part is that I never talk to those folks again ;) I found out that I actually really like making fast friends, I just hate the obligation of long-term close-knit friendships.
Probably at least once a week, you're going to see someone drop something, press the wrong button on the elevator, try to push on the pull door etc. My own stress always peeks when I'm in public and trip up on something minor like that. If you just shout "hey you need help?" you're probably not going to make them feel any better and doubly worse if you just avoid eye contact and walk around them. When that happens to me, it can reaaaally sour a morning.
But saying "they really need to make these doors automatic, I dropped my coffee here last week!" and helping out if they want it has the EXACT opposite effect. Suddenly, it's not embarrassing any more, and you might have a little convo commiserating about what sucks. It's just a little bit of connection to make someone's day a bit better which is definitely a win-win and good way of breaking the seal on talking to folks.
There's also another more neutral option. Just give them the answer they need without the fluff. If they then want to thank you and chat it's their choice, but completely optional.
This is probably not the right approach most of the time, but it works well on the types of people who seem "serious" (not anxious or upset).
This is a really hard one to pull off. You have to determine that they really are that type of person and then just magically know what they want. It's really satisfying when it works though.
I've met some of the most interesting people I've ever known that way.
Build your own repertoire of expressions by picking what you like. You could even use AI to make lists of such phrases if nothing comes to mind. Take the ones you like and use whatever suits you. At some point it'll become automatic.
> I highly recommend talking to strangers! People are lovely. Go out and try it.
Which country are you in?
I'm from a latin country and the norm is that you end up chatting about life the universe and everything with any random people you share a space with for more than one minute.
But in the USA that doesn't really fly. Talking is transactional, either a business deal is going on or shut up. I've been in the USA for a long time and as an introverted person I'm mostly ok with that, but whenever I'm back home I realize how much I miss talking to random people.
A lot of seemingly casual interactions in the US turn out to be someone trying to sell something. When that happens a 3rd time, you start to ignore random chatter from someone that seems too friendly. The salesperson tactics abuse common social conversation rules, and one ends up feeling like they are being forced to be mean and rude to an idiot. So, to avoid that, we push away chatty strangers in the United States.
Having grown up in Germany i was surprised how many people in the US would strike up a conversation randomly in the street with me - I thought it’s a normal thing and never really experienced it in Germany - there I would always be suspicious that people try to scam me or get money or something.
I do agree with GP that in Latin America it’s super common and normal to chat with everyone.
But there are many levels to this - it’s for example less common in Nordic countries at least in my experience but you can speak to people in every place on earth, it’s something universal.
I live in a Nordic country. The rule here is to avoid social contact at any cost. People waiting for a bus must stand at least 2 meters away from each other. Otherwise you might be close enough for someone less equipped in the local etiquette to mistake you for someone that may engage in small talk. When sitting , never sit directly next to someone else. Stand if that’s not possible and try to observe the 2 meter rule. Neighbors learn each other time routines to make sure they never have the uncomfortable experience of having to cross paths and acknowledge the others presence.
I'm on my fifth decade living in the nordics. Strangers have conversations at bus stops and neighbours socialize by the garbage bins and across the hedges all the time.
Not as much as in some other places in the world, but it is not at all rare.
Maybe in other regions, I am in Stockholm and would be shocked by an approaching neighbour trying to talk to me, unless it was to complain about my trees or something.
On the bus/train, even when it breaks down and we have to wait nearly an hour for it to start moving again, I've seen carriages full of people not speaking a word to each other (except people now think it's ok to speak on their phones, to my great annoyance).
Sounds more like Finland than Denmark. Danish people seem to quite fond of conversations with strangers. I cycled through entirety of Denmark one summer and we’ve had so many beautiful engagements with locals, in villages, towns and cities alike.
As a Pole, Germany was the first place I started enjoying random convos on the street. It definitely depends where as Germans aren’t homogeneous. Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein are brilliant in that regard. Heck, in Hamburg a dude said my t-shirt is sick and I still remember that vividly. It’s been one of my first solo trips out of my country and it boosted my morale for the rest of that holiday.
It may also depend on where you're from. I'm British, have travelled around the US, and never had problem engaging in chit chat with all sorts of people, big cities or not. But there's a strong disarming undercurrent of "oh wow, you're from England" through the whole experience that I expect most Americans never experience, at least within their own country.
Tourist areas of large cities are like this. LinkedIn connections are like this. Other than that, people are delighted when you speak to them for the most part.
If nothing else, the nerves and flashbulb memories overwrite old nerves and flashbulb memories.
That or someone running some sort of scam or asking for money. All on the same continuum I guess. I'm always on my guard when a talkative stranger approaches me. Which is sad in a way, but experience proves it's necessary.
I'm in my 42nd year of life and I've never been small talked into giving someone money. I have been accosted by pan handlers who are directly asking for money. But never under the guise of a conversation. Ok, I take it back, once in 2011.
It's kind of crazy when someone has an outlier experience and then tries to frame an entire country as being that way.
I've experienced a lot of cultures, countries, and environments. The United States is KNOWN for being a friendly country of people who will talk to you and smile at you for "no reason" other than because Americans are friendly.
Go to many countries in Europe or even Russia, you'll experience the exact oppositive. If you smile at people or talk to a stranger, you will essentially be treated as if something is wrong with you.
Everyone knows this is true about the US. Your comment is clearly trying to portray the United States in a negative light with something that is entirely not true.
And then there's my experience: someone who has lived in the US for over 30+ years.
Frame however you need. Born and raised in the USA, lived all over the country, but never the true South. Of course, everywhere is different, and everywhere has friendly and unfriendly people. I've primarily lived in cities with a population greater than 100K, usually several million. I think my statement above stands.
Your statement doesn't though. Opinions don't become rooted in fact when we declare them so. No hard feelings, but your claim is akin to someone claiming that they stay away from Germans to avoid their extroverted nature.
Change "sales tactics" to "pickup attempt" and I think you'll find it a lot harder to dismiss it as a reason - not because it's true, but because of how much of a headache it is to get on the bad side of people who insist it's true. I'm gay (and active), but don't really present as such, and it's remarkable how often I receive, "I wish this creep would stop hitting on me/generally being an unattached male in my presence," vibes. I didn't want to believe it myself, until I noticed the markedly reduced occurrence when speaking to women who were visibly much older than I am. For women my age and younger: I'm not interested, but they think I'm interested, and that is a convo killer.
On the guy side, they usually seem too preoccupied to talk, or are moving with friends/family where interjecting as a stranger would be weird (because you either need to address the group or else you seem like you're attempting to break them off into a conversation away from that group). Though I'll give that the "too preoccupied" is sometimes merely an affect hiding, "This loser has nothing to offer me."
When I visited New York City (and the US) for the first time in like 2010 I was taken a back but how much Americans like to chat randomly so this is strange to read.
I remember a random guy was chatting to me in the subway, then I got out, waiting at a crosswalk for the green, in those 15 seconds another guy starts another random conversation. In the first 2 hours of the trip I already had maybe 10 random circumstantial conversations. The whole trip I felt like if I wanted I could always be talking!
Yep. I lived long enough in the UK to thoroughly absorb their social dynamic, and the chattiness of strangers was my biggest culture shock moving back to the US. (West Coast USA, for those of you who think people here rate high on the "actually reserved" social scale.) I've been back long enough (+decade) to feel comfortable again with this level of random social interaction, but my wife, who's from the US South - twenty years on the West Coast, now - still feels like folks here are socially "cold".
Everyone here should note that The Guardian (I'm old enough to remember when it was The Manchester Guardian) is a UK newspaper, and adjust your understanding of its advice, or its necessity, accordingly.
This was my experience too. The USA is the only country I've ever been to where random strangers will strike up a conversation with me completely out of the blue, and I've travelled quite a lot.
For people whose cultures value reserve and privacy, visiting the U.S. is a study in cross-cultural dynamics and sometimes a serious test of social boundaries. Your comment reflects that. The loudness, friendliness, warmth, and (occasional) casual intrusiveness is both a reality and a stereotype. It always reminds me of this hilarious Harry & Paul (UK) sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGc3zFOFI-s
It's both regional and depends on how you are perceived.
I'm an introvert and I'm always surprised when a stranger talks to me, no matter where I am. But I make a point of always being pleasant back, no matter how I feel about it at the moment.
Sometimes it's just a couple sentences, and sometimes it's more of a conversation. It'd probably be more if I was better at conversations.
The only exception is if I feel the other person wants something from me, or they seem crazy or dangerous. I don't engage with those types.
NYC is very different in that regard from most anywhere else in the US. Random people tend to talk to each other. There’s a vague sense of “we’re all in this shit together”. Maybe it’s something to do with living on a cramped island, with no choice but to work together.
> But in the USA that doesn't really fly. Talking is transactional, either a business deal is going on or shut up.
This is regional within the US and obviously differs by person even then. Just remember that the people you are talking to may be the kind of people that need articles like the above to teach them how to talk to people. Their defenses go up when someone approaches them and while they are well practiced at appearing relaxed, they are not. Conversations are short because its emotionally difficult to stay in a heightened awareness state while someone is trying to pull you out of it. But you can certainly provide offramps
I think it depends on the part of the US. In my experience, being from the south, I am used to people engaging in small talk with strangers. However, working in the northeast I find people to be very transactional until you wear them down over an extended period of time haha.
In some cultures, you signal respecting someone's time by not bothering them.
In other cultures, you signal respecting someone's time by making small-talk with them.
Advice about making small talk vs. not making small talk is not really useful unless it acknowledges this cultural divide and the percentage chance a stranger falls into one culture or another.
This was also my observation after growing up in New England and then moving to Denver, Colorado. People were much more open to conversation than I was previously used to which felt like a breath of fresh air. I realized people in New England seemingly default to a “defensive” interaction mode when conversed with without a pre-shared common ground, such as a task or moment. Its quite apparent when visiting family back east.
Fellow New England -> Colorado transplant. It was pleasantly shocking for me too how much chattier and friendlier people are in Colorado. But now I've lived in Colorado long enough that when I go back to visit New England, it's shocking how cold and taciturn people are there. Conversations with strangers rarely get past "How ya doin?" "Fine and you? "Fine, thanks."
I do appreciate how direct people in the northeast tend to be, and sometimes miss that aspect of the culture.
I grew up in small town Midwest and have now lived in tiny town New England for 20+ years. It still bothers me that folks here in New England won’t even acknowledge you on the sidewalk as you pass each other whereas in the Midwest that is a good excuse for a conversation. They haven’t worn me down though, I still say hello at least to each person as I pass and maybe get a mumble back 50% of the time.
I think a lot of it has to do with the somewhat complicated engagement protocol, if everyone assumes that nobody else wants to talk then it's easier to just keep your head down and at best nod or even avert eye contact but when someone extends a level of conversational courtesy I think people often respond in kind. My challenge is that I don't often have the impulse to break the ice but when I do and feel genuinely outgoing people tend to appreciate the chit chat even if it's just about the weather but I also have many moments of standing awkwardly in elevators silently ascending or walking down the street silently and even feeling awkward ordering food. Being able to consistently be outgoing I feel would be a net positive but I'm not sure what the trick is to just turn it on without it feeling forced.
For what it's worth, this has not been my experience with Americans. There are certainly things that I don't like about the average American, but I find him to be pretty gregarious.
I think this applies for most of the Europe other than south, though smaller the town more talkative the people I think, in villages with nothing to do are people more likely to be curious about the stranger or just having small talk.
I live in tourist Prague, pretty much never talking with someone other than when I see someone clearly struggling with directions in public transport and I see they go out of the tourist city center I just confirm whether they know it, most of the time* it's not what they intend to do.
*Germans being the exemption, seems they like to do whole team line grim the end to end to see the city even when it's not touristy, for these I have recommendation of some rare above the ground subway sections
I’m in the US in the Bay Area. Talking to strangers is not the norm but plenty of people are responsive and happy to talk if you engage them. Break the norms and see how it goes!
When I was staying with my older brothers, one of their magazines was along the lines of maybe a GQ but in the 90’s, iirc I was probably in middle school, and probably reading content a bit above my age level in terms of concept.
One of their articles though was about “talking to women” but it also emphasized just talking to _anyone_. It had suggestions like “if you’re out at the bar, just ask to sit with a random group, introduce yourself, and have a conversation.”
Many years later in college, I did indeed try this at a bar and was pleasantly surprised. I didn’t make any long term friends, or find a new partner, but I did really start honing the skill of being social with anyone. It’s hard, and especially for me and my social anxiety, it has also really helped me feel more comfortable in places unfamiliar and people unknown.
It really helps to learn in an environment where failure isn't emotionally catastrophic. If you only talk to people that are interesting or important to you, then you can end up learning the wrong things because failure hits so hard. The desperation this can create will further serve to drive people away!
People need to feel like it's safe to develop relations with you, rather than like you're trying to manipulate them into doing so, which is what happens when you learn only from very hard failures.
I suppose you're comfortable with it though. Many people aren't comfortable with even the basic step of starting a random conversation or asking strangers questions/for help.
You don't need to do it, but everyone should probably be at least comfortable/confident striking up conversations with people they don't know.
Did people only talk about themselves? It is probably a rare trait when someone legitimately cares about other peoples inane daily lives.
It would be interesting to actually talk to hundreds of people a week for years, you would probably get really good at categorizing people and predicting where they are in life and what their current concerns are.
> Did people only talk about themselves? It is probably a rare trait when someone legitimately cares about other peoples inane daily lives.
I love this honestly. I talked to people that insurance that talks about their customer, retired prostitute that have reached financial freedom, NEETs, right wingers, and many other curious people. The reality is that most people are sane, and with a little bit of compassion and empathy, it is possible to "see how they get there".
I suppose these extremes are only available online because people won't open these up in physical meetings.
I have a couple of tricks that get people to talk to me.
Well, they're not really tricks, just things I do anyway.
One is that I wear an aloha shirt every day, and I shop at Trader Joe's.
Quite often someone thinks I work there and asks me where to find something. I usually know where things are, and if I don't, I find them someone who actually does work there.
One time the guy restocking the freezer said, "Nice aloha shirt! I bet people sometimes ask you where to find things."
30 seconds later, a lady walked up to me and asked if we carry organic bread. So I walked her over to the bread section and pointed out some organic options. Then back to the freezer section: "You were right!"
Another trick is to take my cat Oakey for a walk in his cat stroller. People see the stroller and expect to see a baby in it, and are surprised to see a cat! Children walking with their parents especially love to see Oakey, and he enjoys the attention.
Sometimes you just have to seize the moment. Last year I was at a friend's company summer picnic. One of her colleagues brought her ten year old son. He was wearing an astronomy T-shirt. They were sitting at another table, and as they got up I asked him, "Are you into astronomy?"
"Yes."
"I have a very important question for you. Pluto is still a planet, right?"
"Yes it is!"
We high-fived and I said, "Welcome to Team Pluto!"
We've seen each other at subsequent company events. It is always fun to hang out with a fellow astronomy enthusiast of any age.
I think an important parts of this is that "talking to someone" doesn't have to mean a long drawn-out conversation. Even just a few words back and forth is meaningful.
> I highly recommend talking to strangers! People are lovely. Go out and try it.
I’ve been here since 2009 and this is one of the loveliest comments I’ve read.
At face value, it may seem ‘duh!’.. but there’s a distinct aesthetic to it that resonated with me.
Perhaps the best analogy I can think of is Asimov’s philosophy about writing.
‘I want the reader to forget they are reading as if my thoughts are being transmitted directly from my brain into theirs’ [sic]
Recently, a research publication demonstrated that an LLM.. nah, not today. Sometimes knowing the underlying theory and deciding to disengage from it and just appreciate the moment is fine.
Because I can go outside my apartment here in Tokyo right now and try it. I already do, but each of us has our own unique loveliness. So I’ll keep trying. Just because.
Regarding Japan, and especially Tokyo though, chats with strangers seems nightmarishly difficult (assuming in Japanese). Maybe with tourists in English, but locals?
The exception would be at a bar or similar but outside of that... Yeesh I get terrified even considering it.
I found mixed results given underlying anxiety that hadn't been diagnosed at the point I was trying this. Talking to new people at work, while out pursuing hobbies, and around town, all accrued to more and better conversations.
It was a much bigger struggle with conversations where I was putting extra pressure on myself. Being able to have those other conversations was helpful though. Eventually, I found a therapist and am in a better place with this.
Letting curiosity be the motivator behind starting these conversations and cultivating curiosity more broadly can help -- or at least I have found it to be helpful in making initiating feel less forced. I wonder about people's jobs or the reasons they are visiting a place or what they think about what's happening nearby, or just generally who they are.
One antipattern I've encountered with this approach tho is that sometimes anxious people will exhaust their conversation partners with a battery of questions. Even if thoughtful, this can sometimes have the effect of exhausting your partner, and tends to keep the conversation steered away from actual connection. YMMV, but either way be mindful and make it a point to share yourself
You teach yourself to say no, to the things you don't want to do.
I considered leaving just that pithy reply, because that's really it. But some of the extra context; It's not a bother to ask someone to hold the door they're already going through because your hands are full. Starting a conversation is about as intrusive as that. The vast majority of people don't mind making some small talk, and ontop of that, the majority can make an excuse if they don't have time. You only assume they can't politely decline, because you can't. Once you learn to say no thanks, politely, but explicitly and directly. You'll actually understand and expect others to return the favor.
That's a much more fair way to interact with people too.
I'd add also that learning to hear someone tell you no and not taking it to heart and getting on with your life. So many people walk through life being afraid of hearing someone reply "no" to them, like its some existential rejection of them and that stops them from doing many things.
I'll make chit chat with anyone, and people who dont want to chat with are generally pretty explicit about saying they dont want to chat or don't have time, or pretty obviously implicit about it by not engaging or looking for ways out.
Yeah this is the way. You will lightly bother some people by being talkative. But it’s ok. So long as you’re sensitive to their desire not to talk, you’ll be fine. Nobody will murder you in the night or kick you out of the village.
I live in an apartment (condo). I’ve been practicing making small talk with people in the elevator. The conversations aren’t all winners. Lots of people are closed off or don’t want to chat. But no matter. Elevator conversations are disposable. And most people are genuinely lovely. It’s a fun challenge trying to brighten the days of strangers.
For me that clicked we are all just kids. Your parents are struggling with some problems in everyday life as you are. Your teachers sometimes might say they don't know the answer to your question in their field which is alright. (Parents and teachers are two figures who we look up to.) My point is that if you're thinking, "they have much more experience and I don't, so no need to bother them.." you're wrong. Basically, they could have more things, but about same lot of problems in the life as you. After that, just start asking simple questions.
As the article says, you just take the risk. Maybe you will bother the person. It’s okay, you’ll be able to quickly tell if you do, and you just gracefully back away and go on with your day. It’ll probably happen much less than you think.
I concur. And would just add two points:
(1) Make it that you’re not asking for anything / don’t open with something that could be perceived as a setup to asking for money, or pushing a religion. :)
2) be sensitive to social cues or that they want to be left alone, like terse answers or shifting their attention away from you
I’ve found it can be helpful to shift your own attention after someone answers you, but not to a phone (which just makes you look like you’re communicating with someone else).
Look at a flyer on the wall, or your beverage if you’re in a bar, and they’ll follow up if they want to talk and appreciate the reduced pressure either way.
And yeah, never open a conversation with something like “can I ask you a question?” which is usually a trick of a salesperson or beggar to make you acknowledge them and start saying yes.
This actually jives with my personal experience living in NYC.
New Yorkers have a reputation for being stone cold with strangers, but the truth is that anytime somebody approaches you out of the blue, there's an assumption that they're about to ask for money or try to get in your pants. Once you demonstrate you're not looking for either (or, if the second I suppose, that you're at least smooth enough for it not to be immediately evident), people are generally really kind. With some exceptions, I've usually found that the coldest looking person will stop to give a lost tourist directions if it's clear they're in need.
Lasting consequences include social outcasting and even dismissal. Those are pretty lasting.
>Just don’t make things a big deal
That sadly doesn't stop the runmors from flowing. That's the real damning thing about such social faux pas. Your reputation can be ruined without having a single person say it to your face. That's both unsettling and morbid for how you look to humanity.
You have to mess up pretty badly for this to happen. Most people would be a lot less worried what others think of them if they realized how rarely the do.
The reality is that most people are too busy thinking about themselves to spend any time thinking about you or a random little interaction that didn’t land
> The reality is that most people are too busy thinking about themselves to spend any time thinking about you
I was fortunate to come to this realization in my 20s and wish I had realized it so much sooner. The vast majority of people are only thinking about themselves the vast majority of the time. This means the anxiousness we feel about what we think other people think about us is mostly made up in our heads.
If you’re not talking to anyone, you’re already a social outcast. In my mind the risk of saying something wrong is much less than the risk of being omitted through inaction.
I'm trying to figure out in what situation asking someone a general question like 'how is your day going?' going to have lasting negative consequences.
My grandpa had a gift for people - the man could start a conversation with anyone, form fast friends and remember their spouse’s middle name in twenty years.
As he put it, it’s a coin toss. Maybe you’re bothering them or maybe they’re grateful to have someone to distract them. Each is equally true before you start the conversation.
The key is being able to read social cues. If you can, you can stop bothering them.
Would you be bothered if a stranger struck up a nice conversation with you? Most people like it! And even if they don’t, that’s ok, trust people to tell you their boundaries and respect them when they do. Nothing wrong with bothering someone if they tell you or send a strong signal and you respect it.
I said "obvious" and "everyone". I think your level of paranoia is irrational, but in addition it's not required of everyone with those different experiences.
I'm from the US and not the Midwest. Not rural either. If I'm clearly doing something it might bother me, otherwise I would find it nice to meet someone new. I have mild asd and large gatherings cause anxiety, but if I'm just sitting people watching or on a stroll, talking to one or two people wouldn't bother or stress me.
I probably shouldn't even legitimize this absurdity by responding to it, but no. And if the answer were yes, that would not validate the fallacious reasoning processes leading to this guess. Here's a hint: reread my comment, focusing on the words "obvious" and "everyone".
> Would you be bothered if a stranger struck up a nice conversation with you?
Yes. If I am basically anywhere there are other people, I am there for a specific reason, and anyone trying to talk to me for anything else is bothering me. I've found that most people that try to start conversations with strangers are really poor at reading signals that their actions are unwanted and they only stop when you say something so out of their comfort zone they have no idea how to handle it. They just can't understand that people wouldn't want to talk to them.
And after this article and thread, we can add I don't want to be your practice dummy to the reasons you're bothering me.
The example in the article is a waiting room. Or you could be waiting to catch the subway, or in line at the grocery store. In those situations how is somebody trying to talk to you preventing you from completing your task? Otherwise you're probably just scrolling your phone; sometimes I fill these gaps with things like podcasts, but even then it's not like what I'm doing is urgent.
I am wherever for a reason, and that reason is not to be social. I am thinking about what I am doing next, what I need to bring up in whatever thing I'm waiting for, or quite frankly any number of things. You are interrupting me. You'd probably get it if we changed things up and instead of standing in line, we said you were staring out the window while sitting at your desk. You're clearly doing nothing right and talking to you isn't interrupting what your task is because your task is just typing code, and we did just say you're not doing that.
You are bothering me trying to talk to me when I am out, because I am only out to do things specifically. Just because I am currently doing something (waiting) that you deem unimportant or an indicator I am free does not make it so.
I mean yeah I kind of get it, sometimes, it depends what mood I'm in. Sometimes I try to resist this feeling though, because I think being connected with people around me is nice and there are general benefits to being in a friendly community. (If I hated where I lived, or was very busy all the time, I probably wouldn't give it a second thought.)
I usually just start with a small harmless joke about the current situation we're both in. People either don't respond to it, and I leave them alone, or they engage and a conversation commences.
All of these have to be told light-hearted, as observational "jokes". Not like you are actually annoyed. You're just making light of a situation.
"I guess the bus is just never on time here, huh"
(Stuck in line at the grocers) "Friday evening rush-hour"
Same kind of thing with whatever you are observing, at the Doctor, in the gym, waiting for the light to turn, etc, etc.
It's all shit jokes if you can even call them that. But the purpose isn't to start a standup routine, it's to share a situation with a stranger and open up the floor to conversation. You are basically just indicating to a stranger: "Hey, I'm open for conversation", they can then choose to respond or just ignore the remark. Then you go from there.
While I agree with everything, I personally try to make my one liners positive instead of negative. On average it just opens an opportunity for a nicer conversation than another whine about politics, weather or public transit.
Exactly this - yesterday I was in line at the grocery store and the cashier and customer ahead of me were complaining about our long, frigid winter (not normal for this region) - I joked about how if the long-range forecasts were correct we will be up to +18c next Saturday and we all laughed about the launch straight from winter into "summer". And we all moved on - not everything has to be an in-depth conversation.
I think that it comes down to that people often like to talk about their interests but worry that the recipient may not be. So we end up with two people who want to talk but worried about the others feelings.
These are called questions. They’re great. Hell, if you want to be regarded as a great conversationalist and great storyteller, all you have to do is ask questions.
If the answer is, "of course not". Pull that thread. Honestly, so much "therapy" for some of us boils down to confronting/examining that disconnect and exploring why it exists/how it came to be.
Not the guy you asked, but my answer is: only if they are panhandling. Otherwise I usually feel a little surprised that someone would have any interest in my thoughts. So I feel a bit tickled if they have genuine interest.
I genuinely get bothered when someone talks to me. I am typically rushing through my day to do stuff, whether it is hiking, grocery shopping, working out, or going to the restroom at work, and getting interrupted feels to me like getting an unwanted push notification on your phone.
When someone occasionally engages, I extremely quickly dismiss them in the most polite, but firm, way possible. I also intentionally keep a demeanor that generally signals I’m not open to random conversations (I avoid eye contact etc.), but that often doesn’t work. At the gym it is particularly problematic, I’m focusing on gathering strength for my next set and sometimes people bother you even if I am wearing headphones.
I truly do not have a problem with who I am, I’m comfortable in my shoes.
As such, never in a million years I would approach a stranger to strike up a conversation, it would seem an incredibly rude thing to do towards them, on top of clearly not having any desire to engage from my side.
I’ll talk for hours straight to my wife, close family and the very few friends I have though!
Fascinating how much this varies by culture too. People generally have attitudes similar to you in Nordic countries, or even Seattle, but then you go to South American countries, or India, and it feels like everyone talks to everyone all the time.
Danes are, according to the internet, in the "don't talk to me ever" group, but I don't think that true. Mostly I believe that's because the areas of the internet where people talk about the glory of self-checkout and the benefits of wearing big ass head phones are a little self-selective in their view of the world.
Obviously you should not bother people, but even in random encounters many people absolutely loves to talk. In many you can see their eyes light up if you talk to them of ask them a question. The internet has us so conditioned to believing that people just want to be left alone that we miss out on a ton of wonderful human interaction.
We honestly can't keep both talking about a loneliness epidemic and at the same time push the narrative "don't talk to me ever". We should absolutely respect e.g. people on the autism spectre or anxiety and their issues with talking to strangers, but I feel like we're allowing them to dictate a mode of interaction, or avoidance thereof, which isn't healthy for the rest of us.
I am bothered by random people wanting to talk to me -> Randomly talking to other people would bother them -> Bothering people is rude -> Randomly talking to people is rude.
Hence why the platinum rule is better. Once you know that other people (apparently!) aren't bothered by randomly striking up a conversation, you can adjust your actions accordingly.
No, that rule does not say "it is rude for others to do unto you differently from how you would do unto them"--it's about how you should behave toward others, not a justification for your negative judgment of how others behave toward you.
I agree that the platinum rule is better, but that difference is not the problem here.
I don't judge them negatively. They're working based on the available information. That line of reasoning is the exact same that I would use if it weren't for the fact that I have better information available and thus can apply the platinum rule. I don't enjoy random conversations, and would consider it rude to engage in them if it weren't for the fact people seem to enjoy them. Since they do, I try to engage in them when people try to strike one up.
If I didn't have that information (and people used the golden rule consistently and weren't just knobheads), then I would be consistently annoyed at people not following the golden rule. As long as my theory of mind doesn't include 'other people generally enjoy random conversations', my perception would be that the golden rule is consistently broken by people striking up random conversations.
This is a common mistake many make - please don't be a "mind reader" and make assumptions. Seek clarification. Treat people like adults, and act like adults - you have the right to talk to anyone or ask someone for help. They have the right to be dismissive towards you or say no for whatever personal reason. People have different personalities. Sometimes, even nice people people act differently depending on the day they had and their moods. The point is, if they are strangers, you don't need to attribute any meaning or malice to this. However, always be mindful of social conventions and cultural practices.
Most people crave conversation and interaction. Those that are busy enough to potentially really be bothered will either show that clearly, or tell you so.
Wherever it starts, it requires both sides willingness to go beyond the level of "quite a weather, huh". Without which the right approach is a quick and graceful exit. My 2c.
To summarize, the suggestion was to live like you live in the Midwest outside of urban/suburban areas. That's very funny to me.
My spouse had a hard time acclimating to rural Midwest life after living in a mega city on the East Coast. She complained that everything takes an extra half hour for time spent standing around talking about nothing.
It never dawned on me that if you're from a place, like a large city, where interacting with strangers or very distant acquaintances isn't encouraged, that this would not be a natural part of life.
I find this interesting but don't know what to do with that.
Yup. I’m super social and extroverted, in the sense that I love meeting new people and if I’m introduced to anyone I make connections easily. But I can’t in a million years be the one breaking the ice.
This is in big part due to being born and raised in a large European capital. There’s unwritten barriers you respect as a social rule, and if someone breaks the rule you assume they’re trying to sell something or scam you. To me talking to a stranger unprompted feels as out of place as pulling my pants down in public.
It’s natural for these barriers to exist to make dense spaces liveable, but they do constrain you.
That's like that scene from Crocodile Dundee - for those that don't know the movie, the guy is from some tiny town way out in the sticks in Australia, and visits NY. In the scene I'm thinking of, Dundee walks down a street in NY following his usual habit of greeting everyone, which is difficult as they don't expect it and there are too many anyway.
I used to live in a rural area and I found it so claustrophobic. I hate living in a place where I've seen everyone's face, know every street and every building. It feels so limiting, there's nothing to explore, no magic shops or communities to discover.
And also, I really hated the religious mindset with all the little rules they have, the hatred for lgbt people, single parents, foreigners etc. There were good people too but you always had to watch who was around to have a chat. I'm very progressive and atheist. And very alternative.
My ex who was from this community even got in trouble with some parents because she told the kids she was minding that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Apparently it's normal to deny all the progress we have made as a society.
I just couldn't deal with it, it just made me so depressed. And this wasn't even in the US but just in Europe.
In the city it's much easier to find open-minded people. And the ones who aren't don't control public life. I don't ever want to live in a rural area again after that (though in fairness I do have some ptsd from it).
I live in a rural area (not in the US though). Everyone knows I'm a weirdo, and almost all of them are cool with it. This is how people lose their prejudices - they meet a foreigner, or a single mother, or a gay person, and they discover that they like them
I was a foreigner in that country too and there's been so many times that people were bitching about foreigners with me present, only to realise and go like 'present company excepted of course' as if that makes it ok.
In my experience it just made me the exception to their prejudices but did nothing to actually remove them.
Don't talk to me though, while I am trying to do focused work ...
Or other people who are really busy right now, but in general yes, most people enjoy random interactions and talks. And most people do have interesting things to share. You have to have genuine interest, though. Don't force it - but be open for it. Make eye contact first and then you might connect. It is astonishing how many grim looking people suddenly start to smile and act friendly, if you just start a friendly conversation with them. Even if it is just a exchange of a simple comments.
I can't recommend being intentionally rude so that you can get practice dealing with people who are pissed off at you. Learning how to tell when it's a bad time to strike up a conversation with a stranger will be a much greater benefit for anyone looking to meet women or even for someone just working on being friendlier/more social. There'll be no shortage of opportunities to learn how to deal with rejection even without being a pest.
As I understand, GP is recommending that folks take a risk that their drumming up a conversation might be unwelcome if they are unsure. They're not advocating for folks to harass people who are in no position to chat or who have stated as much.
People can't read minds, so I think we owe grace to the folks around us if they misread a situation and respect your wishes when you let them know that it's you're unwilling or unable to chat at the moment.
While it's great to learn social cues, it's often impossible to know whether someone is in the mood to chat.
I cannot agree with that. Do not be shy about trying, but do not be a pest either. There are many times when interruptions are not good for both sides. My 2c.
I hope this is not an inappropriate question, but are you by any chance fit and/or attractive? I've heard that and being well dressed affects your experience with people a lot.
For me it's a mix, the majority at least try to be decent and pleasant, no argument there. But as with many other things, the minority who aren't tend to have a much bigger impact. Honestly, I'd take just being safe from violence from people is good enough for me, even that isn't a given.
I agree. 95% of violence is committed by men aged 15-25. If you wanted to be extra sure, just avoid that very specific group. But in general, minute by minute, nobody wants to be violent.
But then I'd be prejudiced. Stereotypes exist because they have a certain good degree of accuracy, but that doesn't make them right. For the sake of that one person in that group that didn't do anything wrong, I have to try and be fair to the whole group.
This is where you use this stereotype to do a more detailed evaluation of the person to decide if they're safe/worth engaging with, or avoid them entirely if it's not worth it to you. You might bring in other stereotypes at this point and apply this process recursively until you have no more statistical regularities to use to guide your behavior.
Care to share a similar break-down by race, income, and wealth? From what i looked up, the average black income is $56k/yr but for white it is $92k/yr. 20% and 7.5% respectively for percent of the population that's under the poverty line.
Also for the same crime stats 69% for white and 26% for black is what I'm seeing for 2024-2025, with 60% and 30% of the population respectively. so 13% more for black and 9% more for white, we're talking about a 4% difference when looking at overall crime. accounting for reporting issues and requirements is a different story. Just like your other comment, such a deceptive line of thinking you people like to push. The numbers you show are accurate, but the interpretations you interpolate are lies of omission, or at best willful ignorance to support a prejudice.
Even for correlating with age I don't agree with this type of conclusion that lacks the lightest touch of critical thinking.
Yeah, buddy, you're just a good old fashioned racist. Men commit most violent crimes too by the way, I'm sure you knew that. So in short, to follow your logic, everyone should stay way from men, people under 25 and people who're not white or asian. Only white and asian women over 25 are safe?
And of course 99% of crimes (felonies) are committed by people over 15, so they're not safe as well.
You know, the problem with people like you is that you've already decided what result you want to see. So you'll observe evidence, and you'll criticize it, until it fits the narrative you're expecting. Whereas a person looking for truth, will continue to criticize the results even when the results make sense to them, or fit their expectations and prejudices. When the data confirms your prejudice you feel vindicated and cling on to it.
If you look at a heat map overlay of crimes in the US, you'll certainly see areas where black people live and have lived historically with the most crimes. If you did the same with the data representing current and historical poverty rates you'll see the same pattern. Heck, I've even seen maps of the US south that compare all of that data with soil fertility, it turns out the areas where cotton would grow the most is where the slaves were imported into, and then after the civil war ..well you probably know the rest.
Either way, I think you missed what I said originally in this thread about justice and fairness. You wouldn't want to be held responsible for an arbitrary group someone else placed you in, would you now? so why do that to others.
Numbers are also deceptive, would you be concerned more about mass shootings, rape, child abuse, human trafficking, robbery? crimes of poverty, crimes of vice, crimes of psycopathy. If I'm going to school I'd care more about mass shooters, if I'm a woman and jogging, I'd care more about rape, but even then recent trends are more important than generalized long term stats. For some crimes just one incident a year is too much, for others you can have thousands and it might still be normal with a big enough population (e.g.: car break ins).
The thing that pisses me off the most with your kind of thinking is that even following your reasoning, why is race important? You presume some kind of biological connection. Even among racists, some prefer to ask questions and follow the "it's their culture" thinking, which has some merit, as Europeans are finding out from all the recent migrations. But you know the really insidious part of your reasoning? When you see a certain group being convicted of crimes more than others, your assumption is they commit more crimes, instead of asking if the cops are arresting and targeting that group more than other groups.
I mean, it isn't really a big secret, you can be a rich guy on wallstreet and snort coke night and day and you'll be left alone. But people serve decades in prison for possessing weed that's legal in other states. There are cities like portland and SF that have a largely white population that see lots of crimes of poverty and opportunity as well, similar to other cities where those people tend to have more melanin on them. I urge you to visit seattle or portland, with an expensive car, you should follow the local custom of unlocking your car, so they don't break the window when they want to go through your things to see if there's anything worth taking (they still break the window though, most are too lazy to check if the door is open).
I wish it was just media. And it's certainly not random, I wouldn't expect violence in a decent neighborhood. But I would on the subway in NYC for example (depends on the line too I guess). And by violence I don't mean necessarily assault, but anything that involves the cops, getting arrested, etc.. or certain forms of mistreatment (even though it's a stretch to call them violence).
I mentioned attractiveness because when I dress up nice and lose weight, it's a wildly different world. When that isn't the case I'd say at least 60% of my interactions with people is negative. Out of that I'd say maybe 2% is extreme enough to be considered violence in my view.
I'll say this though, I didn't mean we should avoid interaction or being nice to each other in the off chance people are unpleasant or unkind. I'm just saying, don't go into it with that expectation unless you're pleasant to look at yourself.
Some people, especially as they grow old (and especially women unfortunately), see a remarkable decline in how they're treated, and that in turn causes them to be jaded towards people. If you don't tie how people respond to you to how you treat them to begin with (It's huge struggle for me, not preaching here), it's less of a bitter pill.
> I wish it was just media. And it's certainly not random, I wouldn't expect violence in a decent neighborhood. But I would on the subway in NYC for example (depends on the line too I guess). And by violence I don't mean necessarily assault, but anything that involves the cops, getting arrested, etc.. or certain forms of mistreatment (even though it's a stretch to call them violence).
The fear of crime is more socially harmful than crime itself, net.
A hundred years ago, folks in the US trusted their neighbors more, despite violent crime being more likely than today. The US is objectively safer now, but, ironically, people are more afraid than ever of talking with strangers, and more distrustful of their neighbors.
If folks back then could chat with a stranger without being gripped by paranoia, I think we can do it today. Don’t let the media scare you from living life. Have chit-chat. Have fun!
It's not paranoia, look at this thread alone and the responses from @xigoi , even on HN which is heavily moderated and leans to more liberal views. Terrible people are plenty. I'd think after the past few elections in the US that was obvious. Violence isn't the only reason to be cautions with strangers, mistreatment is another reason, having a negative interaction in general is unpleasant.
The solution is not to pretend people's experiences are invalid, or that somehow reducing the risk of harm is wrong, but to find ways to adapt, and be prepared to handle or dismiss negative interactions, as well as value the benefits of positive ones.
What kind of violence have you experienced from striking up friendly conversations with strangers in otherwise normal circumstances? What are you talking about?
I highly recommend talking to strangers! People are lovely. Go out and try it.
I did this a few times and it surprisingly worked. I was able to make small talk about an article I was reading. Did it matter that I didn't come off with the confidence of Tony Robbins? No.
Obviously this works only if you are an extrovert. Introverts would find this kind of interaction a wasteful use of limited social energy available to them.
Yes, because it's important. And also figure out why you don't enjoy it, and whether that's a self-reinforcing thing. At the very least you can make it something neutral instead of something you actively dislike and avoid.
But why? If I don't enjoy talking to anyone and everyone, why should I be doing it? What's wrong with focusing on people who matter to me?
It's not like I don't give people a chance, but I'm pretty quick in identifying and cutting off people who are draining my energy, even if they are otherwise quite nice and enjoyable company for others.
> If I don't enjoy talking to anyone and everyone, why should I be doing it?
There's probably something to be said about this world being largely built for extroverts and needing to be able to be at least somewhat like that to succeed. Sometimes good opportunities are just a matter of showing up and being sociable, and being good at it.
If you're gonna have to do it, might as well get better at it and get at least somewhat used/desensitized to it. A part of it is also about picking up on social cues, making others comfortable around you and establishing relationships - like those anecdotes about someone who has a really good CV not being able to compete to someone who knows someone at the company, but obviously not just in the professional world.
I don't necessarily like that it's the way it is and have missed out on A LOT of opportunities due to being quite introverted but oh well.
Yes. It's like exercise. Or eating healthy. I don't enjoy working out but I should really be doing it. I really enjoy eating sweets, but I should not be doing that all the time.
An analogy isn't an answer to "why", it's a literary device to make it easier to understand a concept.
Even if talking to people is beneficial (I can accept that), you're also shaming people for being introverts. Nobody should be faulted for enjoying me-time. It isn't even harmful. No, it's not like eating too many sweets.
I have ADHD with terrible social anxiety, and conventional treatments only help so much.
I know I can eventually beat it, and I'm so happy for you and everyone who beats social anxiety. You are my idols!
That said, I don't like it when someone says "yeah just do it, it's possible". It's not possible to just do it. Yeah only doing the thing is doing the thing and preparing to do it is not doing the thing, I get it. On the other hand, you can also jump off a cliff without checking your parachute, just saying.
Strong words. I'd like to understand your choice of words here.
> Categorizing yourself
Also known as knowing yourself, your strengths, and your weaknesses.
> purposefully stunt your growth
A wild assumption that talking to everyone will magically let you grow. Some people just prefer to focus on people that matter to them.
> ... reduce opportunity for growth
By choosing to compete in an area that is your weakness, you already limited your growth potential.
> ... wasteful use of life
So refusing to talk to everyone is a wasteful use of life. Again, I find it more wasteful to talk to anyone instead of people who matter to me. Unless it's fun, of course.
Categorising / knowing yourself is important for sure - I think in the case of the extrovert/introvert thing, it's an important first step to helping yourself, because in my experience/anecdotally, a lot of introverts know they're different from others, yet feel insecure or anxious about it. Awareness and acceptance won't make you "not an introvert" suddenly, but it can help recover from the awkwardness, self-doubt and anxiety. Still anecdotally, me and some other people who (10, 15 years ago or so) learned about introversion found more peace with themselves, that it's OK to want to be home, and that they learn to say "no" or "you know something, I've had enough and am going home".
Learning about who you are helps you know your limits and boundaries, which means you can learn to do more within your comfort zone and how far you can stretch it, which means your comfort zone expands and you can do more. That's the kind of growth I think comes with categorising oneself.
Knowing who you are and what your boundaries are is important. Being an introvert is not a weakness, as much as being an extrovert is not a strength. It's only that extroverts are louder and more assertive, and that way they convinced the majority of people in between that everyone should be an extrovert.
There's a certain amount of evidence that getting over anxiety is harder if you try to do it by doing the thing you are most anxious about.
An alternative is to do things which allow you to become more comfortable with a reasonable degree of personal risk. Which can include things like rock climbing which you do on your own.
Making global declarations about introverts isn't really useful beyond the basics. I'm an introvert and my life has gotten noticeably better once I started intentionally talking to people more. I still need to have my own time to recharge. That hasn't changed. The thing that changed is that I'm not longer inhabiting the self-imposed prison of thinking social interaction was not for me.
Not sure why you got downvoted with a perfectly valid opinion!
I’ve done what OP describes but I’m heavily introverted and likely HSP too. I’m pretty good at it but it’s incredibly exhausting. My father is exactly the same way.
As I get older, the more I consider self care and prioritising my own needs over others to be happy. To that end, I much prefer to keep to myself and so I do.
However it doesn’t stop me from engaging in impromptu conversations. I just don’t go out of my way to talk to literally everyone.
Exactly my point, you just formulated it better than I could.
The problem with extroverts is they assume everyone is like them. And they are pretty loud and push their opinions on others without the ability to listen and reflect. They would ignore that you are not like them, and would come up with all the arguments about "trying", "limiting growth", "training the muscles".
You can't accept that I know what's good for me? You want to change me? You think you know me better than I do? Then fuck you, I'll just stop talking to you without even telling you why.
And that's the exact reason why, in the real world, I just stop any communication with them. If they cannot adjust their communication so it can be enjoyable to me, I'm not going to pretend I enjoy communicating with them.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted but yes, this is true.
I don't want or need to talk to everyone, and I generally don't appreciate people I don't know or won't know in five minutes to engage me in idle chatter. Just leave me be.
I'm not a grouch, I'm not a grump, I'll be friendly but why do you have to harass me?
I'm perfectly comfortable in my own skin, doing my own thing, by myself. I don't have social anxiety, I'm not a misanthrope. Just let me be.
Introverts aren't broken. You don't have to impose yourself on everyone else.
As someone who works extensively with youth, but is somewhat of a extrovert..
There are many reasons why people are introverts. Some of them are "broken" and could use a fix, some are healthy and should not be touched.
If the source is a lack of confidence, it should be dealt with. Sometimes the fix involves pushing oneself to talk beyond their comfort level, sometimes not.
If the source is a form of ASD or Autism spectrum, then it depends very much on what the "introvertness" is costing them. If the person is either suffering or is living out of touch with reality, that's broken. Sometimes talking is absolutely required to create a fix. (Over here, even more-so, getting guidance is a must. Which is a shame since the more a person on the spectrum needs guidance the less he is likely to accept it)
If the source is an understanding of one's relative position (eg. at a meeting of seniors) then that's fine, but too much of that can be unhealthy.
If it's from depression, than please don't introvert. Get professional help.
If you are so into your phone that you've forgotten the joy of interaction with humans, that's broken. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this category, and social media and AI are making things worse. (Nothing new though - 30 years ago I helped a kid who was watching 18+ hours of video, on a CRT! He was mighty introverted, and wanted nothing to do with us humans for weeks after starting treatment.)
If you are just a confident guy/gal that just happens to enjoy your own space, than all the power to you! From what I have heard there are a LOT of people that fall into this category, and I have even meet two or three of you!
But let me stress, even if things are broken, the advice in this article can often make things worse. And if it's not a problem for you, enjoy!
Talking to strangers is one of my favorite things to do. Airplanes, trains, or just waiting at the coffee shop for them to make my drink. I have met so many interesting people and it’s almost always a joy.
Now, you occasionally end up talking to someone who confesses to you that their post-nuclear dream life is to be a mother figure to a band of semi-aware ghouls. Goofy in the moment, but makes for a great story to share over a beer!
I used to do this during long travel in planes, buses or trains when I was single backpacker.
Now traveling with my own family is just exhausting chore and I couldn't care less about stranger sitting next to me, I heard enough stories for whole my life since I traveled a lot.
Recently I traveled with my mother to China and she was excited to talk with some girl next to her on long flight, I didn't find any value gained from such conversation and would rather watch a movie (or outside window is that was an option) and find it harder and harder older I get to see the added value.
I can see how that could happen, but I’d argue that the “value added” is just the opportunity to talk to someone.
I was once decently intoxicated on a subway ride home and I saw a man looking at the floor who seemed upset. I asked him how he was doing and he said “alright.” We chatted a little and he randomly asked me, “do you have a brother?” I told him I did and he asked me, “is there anything your brother could do that would be unforgivable?” I said, “I’m sure there are things he could do that would be beyond forgiveness, but I would have to think long and hard about given how permanent that decision could be. Cutting someone out of your life can be a good thing, but make sure it’s what you think is right because you may never have the opportunity to undo it.”
He seemed to really appreciate the advice and went on his way. I’m not sure what his brother did, but I hope they are able to figure it out. Those types of interactions are (IMO) one of life’s little pleasures.
I try to talk to everyone but it gets exhausting since most people don't seem to want to talk. And in almost every instance, I had a feeling they wouldn't. Go with your gut and don't try to talk to everyone if you're like me and don't want to replay awkward conversations in your head for the rest of the night.
"EXCUSE ME, SIR! I see you are moving with great intention. Might your hurriedness be in connection with those papers you hold in your hand? Pray tell, for I much desire to converse! Aah, I see, I was right to assume you were in a hurry. Anyway, it must be wonderful to be working at a place as beautiful as this, is it not? Hah ha ha yees, isn't it wonderful. Well, alright then be on your way if you must."
Sorry but I couldn't help imagining you as the fake health inspector from Fawlty Towers while reading your comment.
I do agree with you though, talking is great, we are social animals even though modern life allows us to forget this, to our own detriment.
I have a note at the beginning of my journal that says: 'Stand up straight, eye contact, smile', because I constantly need to remember that or I will look down, slouch and move through the world barely interacting with anyone.
Please also recognize when others don't really want to talk. Not everybody want to go beyond cultural niceties of a smile and "hi, how you doing". I don't want to be a jerk, but I also don't like to talk to random strangers.
This will never be me (I find any kind of smalltalk excruciating). But I'm so grateful, not to say relieved, that there are people like you. Society needs you.
Until you run into an A-hole whose response ruins the rest of your day when you were just trying to be sociable. I could even see getting physically assaulted for trying to talk to the wrong stranger. I like where your heart is at, unfortunately many people out there are not deserving of it.
The idea of practicing these random interactions is also to get accustomed to rejections from the assholes.
After all, they aren’t the majority- most people are actually quite nice and often appreciate a company (or will politely tell you they don’t need one)
Agreeable comments will draw comparatively fewer replies, while disagreeable ones achieve the opposite.
But this then results in a "false experience" for the individual, where unlike in real life, the bad exchanges do not end up outweighed by the good ones, as you simply don't go on to have those. You just upvote and move on (often to avoid redundancy).
Maybe if the two were tied together (voting either up / down & sending a reply), communities would work healthier? I don't know. Not like it's easy to have this tried out.
I could definitely see challenges to this though, the aforementioned redundancy being one. I have some countermeasure ideas, but then I wonder if that would make the UX complicated enough to drive people away instead, which is a lose-lose.
Yeah, some of the responses in this thread I hope are just jokes. Asking someone how their day is going is bare minimum social behavior that should carry zero risk of anything.
I mean, why does it ruin your day? It's just some random person - you'll likely never see them again, or you'll know to avoid them in the future. Why is the opinion of some rando weighing on you so much?
This whole thread is about wanting to talk with strangers because it makes you feel good, if approval from strangers makes you feel good the natural corollary is rejection from strangers can also make you feel bad. It would be bit weird to go out of your way to talk to people because you'd enjoy their kindness but then when they're unkind turn around all like "oh I never cared about you anyway". Isn't it?
have you had actually negative interactions like that? they sting for years, even after hundreds of mild-to-positive ones. the brain focuses on risk-minimization and not reward-maximization.
My brain on a Monday in a crap mood driving on the highway: that jerk that just cut me off has ruined my entire day.
My brain on Friday after good sleep and a relaxing morning: heh look at the guy, he's definitely in a hurry. Hope he gets where he's going, back to my jams!
I try to train myself to remember to be Friday brain, but sometimes Monday brain comes out and I'm in a funk that makes me forget I actually have a choice about NOT reacting a specific way. I like to think I'm getting better at consistently not sweating the small stuff and just letting those instances go without giving them an appreciable amount of mental space better suited to relaxing and listening to good music.
Of course, not everyone wants to talk while in public, and not everyone knows how to politely decline a conversation. That's also fine, everyone's somewhere on the social spectrum(s).
I have tried this at various times. But, while some people are lovely, there are some that are miserable and there are plenty that are simply... uninterested. When you are slightly awkward, not particularly attractive, and not wealthy, you have to get used to people just turning away, avoiding eye contact, expressing mild cues of disgust, and so forth. It's really quite painful to try.
It's great as long as they don't turn out to be a creep. And that's terrible advice for practicing talking to women. Talking to a person you're attracted to, or want anything from in general, isn't going to present the same way. No matter how much you practice. Attractive women have to deal with that, all day, every day. They'll shut it down quickly if they're not interested. You'll be the creep if you don't quietly take the hint, and walk away, when they're not.
An old guy sat at the table next to mine at an outdoor cafe. I don't remember what I said to start the conversation but he told me he'd lived in Japan for 3yrs in the 50s, married a Japanese woman, they moved to Redondo Beach and she convinced him to buy a house more than they could afford. He said it was the best decision of their lives. He then said she'd past away a few years ago and they had no kids.
I ask him what he thought of the population crisis Japan is facing. He said said that was bullshit and that 8 billion people in the world are way too many.
Why so quick to moralize? What makes you think your perspective on world population is justified and his isn't?
This could have been an opportunity for both of you to understand each other's perspective. That's why you asked their thoughts on the matter right? It's a shame you let that pass you by.
I asked his thoughts on the matter because I assumed he didn't want to see Japan end since he had a connection to it. But, he didn't give a fuck if they ended, nor Korea.
And if you think they'y aren't ending, you need to go look at the numbers and then look at the double speak on solutions. There are no known solutions. Every solution requires a miracle that has never happened.
Thank you for explaining. Could be he's a misanthrope, through life experiences or such.
I share the same sentiments as you, it'd be a tragic loss. But saying they'd "end" is well, unlikely. The countries will shrink. Japan population could reach 60M by 2100 if nothing is done. That's still a lot of people and by then other factors will dominate and fertility may rise again.
Humans are adaptive and a lot can change in half a century, so I would not overly index on what projections say. Everything would need to stay static for the projections to matter, which given the rate of technological changes and geopolitical tension, sounds likely.
That was rather rude I think, why'd you stop talking to him instead of the purpose of communication - learning about other people? Killing conversations because of a difference of opinion - and one where you didn't even explore the reasonings - is why the world is becoming more and more polarised.
While I don't agree about population either way, in my lifetime it's grown from about 3 billion to over 8 billion. This has been quite a ride. Also, there's a world of a difference between global carrying capacity with responsible aliens managing, and our current management.
This is me. I learned to not talk to strangers because 80% of the time I just get disappointed. Either I need to reflect my disagreement with their (imo) stupid takes or just be unauthentic and agree.
Yesterday I got stuck with this kind of stranger for 3 hours for work stuff. It was just me and him driving. When he started telling racist jokes and expressed his dissatisfaction with human rights I thought here we go again and went for the unauthentic route. As the conversation rolled he became more easy and personal. Told me about his family, his immigration and less nice parts of his life. I felt compassion and it really feels like we ended up being more connected than the beginning.
I was going to say - with agents the only part I actually have to do is design. Well, and testing. But they don’t really do design work so much as architecture selection if you provide a design.
DIY used to just be “the way”. Today “the way” is Bambu. But the scene has also grown a lot, so I could see the market size of DIY staying the same or growing, even if its lost a lot of market share.
THis is a case of me not knowing and assuming, ha. I remember the peak days of the RepRap scene so I just assumed as that slowed down, the entire thing was dead
I was attending Bay Area Reprap Club meetings in 2010! Got my first printer (Ultimaker V1) in 2011. My how things have changed. We just got a second Bambu H2D Pro at work. Incredible machine.
In my mind, only community ownership of the means of production can truly achieve what we desire. Of course with all distant goals, it is hard to see how we get there. And to be clear I do not mean state ownership.
But I am curious, on my basic point of elite capture of the state, does that make sense?
I am struck that TFA’s title says UBI is “the only way to share”, amusing to me since literally directly sharing is another way. I understand we all have spooky ideas of what that means, but think for example of the concept of library economies. You borrow what you need, but you don’t own it nor have the right to destroy it. We share.
reply