[HN Gopher] Forces that fuel friendship
___________________________________________________________________
Forces that fuel friendship
Author : throw0101c
Score : 194 points
Date : 2022-06-12 11:31 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
| yosito wrote:
| I clicked expecting to see some science-based research about what
| results in good friendships. Instead I found an opinion based
| listicle. Not necessarily a bad article for provoking thought,
| but definitely more opinion than fact.
|
| I recently went to cross cultural a meetup where friendship was
| the topic of discussion. One thing I realized is that people
| struggle to agree on a definition of friendship. There's an
| especially noticeable divide between individualist and
| collectivist cultures.
|
| My own definition of a friend is "someone with whom I have
| shared, positive experiences". But I do find that there's a
| difference between fast-friends, and long lasting, deep
| friendships. The six things mentioned in this article are
| definitely good things to consider if you want to develop long
| lasting friendships, but they're also not fixed formulas.
| starkd wrote:
| I thought kind of the point of the article is that there is no
| hard and fast formula to it. Not something that can be
| distilled in a series of steps. It also requires spontaneity.
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| To call this a listicle is technically accurate, but does a
| large disservice to the experience of the author. She has
| conducted ~1000 interviews with friends to determine the
| content of the list.
|
| While this is not a peer-reviewed work, I would bet that her
| dataset and experience amounts to an easily publishable
| qualitative sociology/psychology paper.
| andreilys wrote:
| If this is considered a publishable paper then the bar for
| that publication must be quite low.
| [deleted]
| bradlys wrote:
| 1000? I think it's closer to 100 - isn't it?
|
| > That was more than three years ago. Since then, I have done
| 100 interviews.
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| Ah, you are correct. It's 100, I remembered incorrectly.
|
| Up to readers to decide if my point still stands. I think
| it does.
| pkdpic wrote:
| Agreed, I was expecting more substance from this article.
|
| I don't think its much of a stretch to view friendship as a
| concrete social problem. Especially good friendships in our
| professional spheres which are vital to career fulfillment and
| health imo.
|
| Anyway there was (sadly) nothing realistically actionable in
| this article for anyone seeking something even vaguely science
| or stat based.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Anyway there was (sadly) nothing realistically actionable
| in this article for anyone seeking something even vaguely
| science or stat based.
|
| Actionable to achieve what? It makes clear that there is no
| fixed procedure for making friends, but there certainly are a
| lot of suggestions.
|
| I suspect the many linked stories have a wealth of
| information and examples, but they will all be anecdotes
| where none of them could be forced to happen if we tried.
| starkd wrote:
| Since a lot of HN followers work in tech, their work sets
| their expectations for life in general. So, it's
| frustrating when something in life cannot be
| deterministically distilled into a series of steps. It's
| probably one of the biggest blindspots we have.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _I clicked expecting to see some science-based research about
| what results in good friendships._
|
| This article is one in a series. See perhaps "The Friendship
| Researchers Who Are Also Friends":
|
| > _This week she talks with two friends who also happen to
| study friendship. They met at a conference back when very few
| relationship scholars were focusing on the topic, and became
| both friends and professional collaborators. They talk about
| what they've learned from their research and how they've
| applied those lessons in their own friendship._
|
| * https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/04/how-
| frien...
|
| The series has been going on for a number of years:
|
| * https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/friendship-files/
| dominotw wrote:
| > science-based research about what results in good friendships
|
| Isn't research like this deemed totally bunk and unrepeatable.
| Is it really better than a thoughtful 'listicle'.
| isaacfrond wrote:
| The friend app from the article:
|
| https://bumble.com/bff
| telesilla wrote:
| I understand this is for self-identifying women. I've several
| friends who have had success. I wonder what the conditions
| might need to be for platonic male friendships to form, it
| seems to be harder. Judging from my position as a woman who
| easily makes acquaintances that occasionally become
| friendships, and my partner who is very amicable to strangers
| but doesn't care to make new friends.
| swayvil wrote:
| Is self-identification really a thing? Identity seems more of
| a social artifact, emerging naturally from the collective
| dynamic.
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| Yes, it is.
|
| Someone can self-identify as a gender (among other things),
| alter their appearance to present as such, and a kind and
| empathetic society will (should) then regard them as such.
| swayvil wrote:
| It sounds to me like 2 different uses of "identity". One
| for distinguishing an individual. The other for asserting
| a narrative.
|
| That's 2 quite different uses.
| dmonitor wrote:
| When you introduce yourself, you likely give a name. This
| was probably a name given to you, but really it could be
| anything you want. People call you that name out of
| courtesy. You "identity" is heavily influenced by how you
| want to be identified
|
| Like your username. We call you by it because it is the
| name you chose and present to us
| swayvil wrote:
| We use the name I specify because it's useful to do so.
| No courtesy. Just utility.
|
| And if I had a distinguishing feature, that would be used
| to identify me too.
|
| If I wear a big hat then I will be identified as a big-
| hat-wearer. When asked to distinguish me in a crowd they
| will say, "that guy with the big hat". Telling everybody
| that I actually identify as a small-hat-wearer will make
| zero functional difference.
|
| That's how distinguishing features work.
| ranjit_holmes wrote:
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| Interesting, I didn't think any part of what I wrote
| would be seen as controversial.
|
| > Someone can self-identify as a gender (among other
| things),
|
| I do this everyday. It happens to match my biological
| sex, but it doesn't have to. This is probably what makes
| some people uncomfortable, but a biologically determined
| gender binary is hardly a universal human truth.
|
| > alter their appearance to present as such,
|
| We all alter our appearances to present in a way we find
| most useful, pleasing, or comforting. This doesn't seem
| controversial.
|
| > and a kind and empathetic society will (should) then
| regard them as such.
|
| I would hope that this part isn't controversial and would
| be something we all aspire to.
|
| In contrast, I believe that the contexts you've provided
| (prisons, sports, locker rooms) have been demonstrated to
| be largely politically motivated controversies with very
| little real-world evidence for the claimed harms.
|
| A similar situation exists for the medical claims. I
| believe you're alluding to medical interventions for
| gender reassignment for young trans people. There have
| been studies[1] showing that the interventions
| significantly lower suicidal ideation:
|
| > "Among transgender adults in the United States who have
| wanted pubertal suppression, access to this treatment is
| associated with lower odds of lifetime suicidal
| ideation." [1]
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073269/
| ranjit_holmes wrote:
| swayvil wrote:
| ranjit_holmes wrote:
| I guess it's down to a mixture of it being a very
| controversial issue (though I think it shouldn't be that
| much, at least on the topics I mentioned) and one that is
| currently being used by political operators to stoke
| division.
|
| On that note, I also find it quite interesting that both
| the conservative right and the subset of the left that
| are radical feminists and/or gender critical are taking a
| similar stance on this issue. Though for fundamentally
| different reasons of course. Some issues really are
| bipartisan, I guess.
| pizza wrote:
| Just think of self identity as something that minimizes the
| KL-divergence of description of one's self given the
| outside + inner world.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I tried this (as a male) and let's just say it's not exactly
| the type of "friendship" I was hoping for...
| Gustek wrote:
| I think there are only 2 questions you need to answer to decide
| if someone is your friend.
|
| 1. Do you trust them?
|
| 2. Do you care about them?
|
| Ideally it should reciprocated. The hard part is getting there,
| usually it comes naturally as you spend more time with the other
| person out of your own volition. Just because you are meeting
| someone everyday at work does not mean they will become your
| friends, do you trust them? do you care about them?
|
| Once you friends you don't need to meet often as long the trust
| and care is still there. You can become friends in short time as
| well if you decide to put the trust early into the other person
| and they reciprocate. Point is, there is no formula or plan to
| follow.
|
| When I say friend I mean a true friend, not colleagues or
| acquaintances. Were these meanings mixed into "friend" word
| before Facebook as well?
| alexpotato wrote:
| Lou Holtz [0] used to use these questions and one more as the
| three questions you ask leaders in general.
|
| The other one was "Are you committed to excellence?" which he
| sometimes described as "Do you have high standards and do you
| strive to live up to them?"
|
| I always liked his ending statement whenever he talked about
| this:
|
| "Think of someone you respect. Now think of those questions.
| Odds are the answer to all three is 'yes'. Now think of someone
| you are having problems with and, again, think of the three
| questions. I would bet the answer to at least one of them is
| 'no'".
|
| 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Holtz
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| ...A college coach who participated in grift and bribery,
| indirectly or otherwise, in a system that exploited young
| athletes to play a violent sport with lifelong consequences
| for health mentally and physically and offered no long term
| health care and virtually no monetary reward.
|
| No successful NCAA coach is a moral paragon. John Calipari
| used to be held as the bad boy, but actually he was the most
| honest of the bunch.
| mbg721 wrote:
| If those were the only criteria, making friends would be easy.
| People have more built-in tribalism at the very least; the
| article reads like a '50s science fiction novel about robots
| making friends.
| Gustek wrote:
| Is building trust and growing genuine care for someone easy
| for you?
|
| Trust is always a gamble, at extreme you are putting your
| life on the line and you never know if the other person will
| decide to betray you next time regardless of what they did in
| the past.
|
| Caring about someone is even harder as it is not a conscious
| choice we are making, it is feeling. You can't just decide
| from today I care about this person so they are my friend.
|
| My point was, how do you know someone is your friend not how
| to make one. There is no method to make friends, at best some
| tips or guidelines.
| mbg721 wrote:
| No, it certainly isn't easy to do on purpose; that's a big
| part of why raising kids is hard.
| starkd wrote:
| I trust you are being genuine when you say that, but what an
| odd comment. The article seemed like a very profound an
| interesting commentary on what friendship means. I fail to
| see any kind of science fiction in it. The article even seems
| to suggest friendship can cross tribal boundaries, but it
| takes work.
| mbg721 wrote:
| I guess trying to explain how friendship happens seems
| weird to me? It's obvious enough as it's happening that
| being forced to spend time together (as with school)
| generates friendships. Maybe I'm being too critical.
| tshaddox wrote:
| What if you trust someone and care about them, but don't
| particularly enjoy their company? I suppose it would still be
| normal to call that person a "friend," although you'd be
| missing a key part of what most people think of when using that
| word.
| shard wrote:
| The cynical word for that could be "family".
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I recently saw a video about the "Sex Raft".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acali
|
| It was a social experiment involving putting a bunch of people on
| a raft and crossing the Atlantic. The idea was to create an
| environment that promotes sex and violence, instead, everyone
| became best friends forever, except for the experimenter who was
| on board, everyone hated him.
| perlgeek wrote:
| yay for listicils! Didn't Hackernews require you to remove that
| from the title?
| notacoward wrote:
| I think you're overusing "listicle" here. Yes, the article is
| structured around six discrete ideas, but it has the general
| structure of a traditional essay and all fits on one page.
| That's a far cry from a true listicle which requires you to
| keep clicking to see single paragraphs interspersed with ads.
| Just having a number in the title doesn't make it a listicle.
| Also, read the guideline about shallow dismissals.
| mlatu wrote:
| notacoward wrote:
| Where there's a pattern there's a strategy. This is surely not
| the last word on the subject, and it's not meant as a how-to
| guide, but it's a thoughtful and well presented set of
| observations which people can use - if they wish - to increase
| their success rate at making friends. That seems like it's a good
| thing, worth a couple of minutes to think about.
| gretch wrote:
| Based on the principles in the article and some of my anecdotal
| life experiences: Take some adult classes or lessons.
|
| It can be anything, as long as you are genuinely interested in
| it. You don't have to be "passionate" (no one goes from zero-
| to-passion instantly).
|
| Drawing. Cooking. Tennis. Yoga. Video editing.
|
| Chances are you can meet someone in the class that you vibe
| with and the routine of working together to make the best of
| the lesson is a good way to make a friend.
|
| If you get along well, try to convert to a friendship outside
| of the classroom by inviting them to get a smoothie afterward.
| wfhordie wrote:
| This article makes me feel sorry for straight people.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It's rough
| cies wrote:
| I learned there are only 2 pillars under friendship: shared
| interests and trust.
| mapcars wrote:
| One person whom I consider wise said "Friends are people who
| support your limitations" if that helps
| arolihas wrote:
| That's a very cynical perspective that seems to encourage
| self isolation and an emotionally barren life. Not sure if
| that's wise.
| pure_simplicity wrote:
| I think the OP meant that friend support you in overcoming
| your limitations. They support you where you are weak, not
| they perpetuate and grow your weaknesses.
| arolihas wrote:
| I hope so, the way it's worded implies the opposite.
| em-bee wrote:
| or they accept your weaknesses and support you despite
| them.
| dirtybirdnj wrote:
| This is how I chose to interpret it as well.
|
| If you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me
| at my best is a cliche way of saying the opposite.
| swayvil wrote:
| Empirically speaking, I learned from a wise old friend that a
| party requires 4 things : Food, music, drugs and games.
|
| And people at parties are similar to friends.
|
| For what that's worth.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I would say rather that it requires any two of those. You'll
| get very different types of parties depending on which two
| you pick.
| forvelin wrote:
| I think you can solely sustain a relationship with trust, lack
| of common interests can freeze it but does not necessarily
| extinguish it.
| wruza wrote:
| _A new friend could be waiting in the comments section of an
| article you're reading, on the other side of a Google Doc, or in
| an elevator_
|
| I _loved_ talking to strangers in a slow-operating 20-story
| elevator. Surprisingly, they are good and friendly listeners. You
| don't want to spend five minutes with someone you rejected, do
| you? My current home doesn't have an elevator, but I hope the
| next one will.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| As an introvert, your scenario is a nightmare to me. Please let
| me enjoy my elevator ride in peace.
| throw0101c wrote:
| https://archive.ph/pjtIk
| photochemsyn wrote:
| American society at least is highly fractured these days, along
| all kinds of lines, and this seems to have resulted in high
| levels of distrust across those lines - ideological, economic,
| racial, gender, and probably a host of others.
|
| This tends to push people into clusters where they all share the
| same ideological viewpoints, which is a depressing situation. My
| idea of a great party has always been one where a group of people
| from widely different backgrounds are put together in a big room
| and 'forced' to interact with each other, but these days I'm
| afraid that would lead to a bloodbath of some sort.
|
| To quote from Frank Herbert, on the subject of limiting your
| relationships to those who share all your identitarian tick-
| marks, _" I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in
| the stink of your own reflections."_
|
| As far as "close deep meaningful relationships that you can rely
| on through thick and thin, a friend who will always come to your
| aid in times of trouble, and to whom you will always offer
| support" ... that sounds more like a military alliance between
| independent city-states in ancient Greece than your average human
| friendship. Don't expect too much, in other words.
|
| Here's a related (novel?) concept: don't try to leverage
| friendships for personal economic gain, for access to a job, for
| growing your multi-level marketing business, etc. That's called
| 'networking', not 'friendship'. I suppose it has its place,
| humans being human, but don't confuse the two.
| bnralt wrote:
| > ... that sounds more like a military alliance between
| independent city-states in ancient Greece than your average
| human friendship.
|
| It doesn't sound like your average friendship in modern
| atomized societies. But it seems that it was the bedrock for
| many societies throughout history, including close knit
| societies today. I've heard it argued fairly persuasively that
| this is why military insurgencies tend to be stronger in
| societies where kinship groups are fairly strong (and there's a
| strong possibility atomized societies wouldn't be able to
| follow suite).
| fny wrote:
| > "don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic
| gain"
|
| Aristotle identifies three types of friendships.
|
| 1. Friendships of utility, the types you exploit for gain
|
| 2. Friendships of pleasure, the types you exploit to play
| basketball
|
| 3. Friendships of the good, true friendships
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| In other words, business partners, beer buddies, and true
| friends.
|
| I still clearly remember the feelings I had on the day when I
| realized many who spoke of 'friends' likely not had a single
| one.
| more_corn wrote:
| I went into business with my friends because I like
| collaborating on economic gain with my friends.
|
| Did I lose friends? I don't know. I still enjoy being
| around them, working together, economically gaining
| together.
| [deleted]
| notacoward wrote:
| > that sounds more like a military alliance between independent
| city-states in ancient Greece than your average human
| friendship
|
| Has it occurred to you that actual humans' ideal types/levels
| of friendship might differ from your own? Most people want a
| mix, with a few very strong friendships (of the author's type)
| and many more weaker ones (of yours). Many are missing one or
| the other. Some want something different entirely. If the
| author's ideas about friendship don't resonate with you,
| consider just moving on. Deriding it as something that's very
| much _not_ true friendship by anyone 's definition seems like
| exactly the same kind of condescending clannishness you
| complain about (and "identitarian" is - intentionally? - a
| marker of which clan BTW).
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Social media advertises far more of someone's "spectrum" than
| it used to. So it used to be "dude/gal in a suit, polite, talk
| about weather"... now you know political affiliation, religion,
| music taste, the way they talk at length, can derive IQ,
| whatever crazy thing they think (and we all have SOMETHING).
|
| Capitalism and the rich are squeezing more and more money and
| safety from culture, and exploits traditional values of
| generosity and kindness in more and granular ways, and rewards
| sociopathic and narcissistic behavior patterns in a nasty
| feedback cycle. The internet enables all of that faster at a
| far greater granularity and now with AI-assisted attacks.
|
| Combine that with the fact that environmental dangers are now
| starting to appear more tangibly on the horizon, and people's
| beliefs and values and disagreements represent more perceptible
| danger/evil to someone.
|
| The internet, aside from isolated successes (mostly for very
| isolated people), should have brought us together. You could
| argue facebook WAS doing that in its earlier years, but now
| that monetization is necessary, propaganda and dividing and
| conquering of the rabble to serve the elite is what pays.
|
| We live in the greatest amount of leisure and technology ever,
| and yet almost everyone thinks the future will be worse. For
| the current 18-30 demographic, they already are living the
| prospect of their third economic downturn, this time replaying
| the 1970s stagflation, and watching the current power elite
| ostrich plant their heads over global warming and a host of
| global environmental problems.
|
| The internet really now just functions to inform someone of how
| fucked up the world is and the nigh impossibility to change it
| proactively via politics. We will place all our faith in hopes
| in that which got us into this mess: technology.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Thinking about the word "fractured", what turns merely holding
| different views and letting them inform each other in a
| friendly and fair competition into a fracture?
|
| I suspect it comes down to fear and insecurity. When we
| distrust the other, being afraid that their gain is our loss
| and their agenda may hurt our (psychological, financial, etc.)
| security, we start acting erratically. Fear manifests itself as
| anger and contempt. We are not relaxed and watch every word
| they say for signs of pushing their agenda. We are torn between
| considering it beneath ourselves to spend effort arguing _with
| them_ , and being unable to stay silent. We don't know when are
| they themselves and when they represent their group.
|
| You can truly enjoy friendship (and indeed love) if you are
| secure on some fundamental level, and I suspect it is a hard
| precondition.
|
| I don't know where I'm going with this. Maybe we should look
| into being more secure and relaxed? Pay heaps more attention to
| mental health, our own and our society's? Learn to play non-
| zero-sum infinite games? Release some part of us from having to
| fight for survival if we are lucky to enjoy highest ever
| standards of living?
| pessimizer wrote:
| > don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic gain,
| for access to a job, for growing your multi-level marketing
| business, etc.
|
| But on the other hand, do whatever you can to give your friends
| economic gains, access to jobs, and to grow their MLM. Do
| things for them without hesitation that involve little effort,
| loss, or risk for you, and consider about doing things for them
| that involve some effort, loss or risk to you.
|
| Authoritarian structures like capitalism and religion have a
| goal of atomizing us all, forcing people to use them as an
| intermediary. Please don't think that friendship is about
| entertainment and work is about effort. Friendship is about
| mutual aid, and work is about helping the boss in order to help
| yourself.
|
| Two friends get more accomplished than two people.
| geodel wrote:
| Many good points here. Especially
|
| > Here's a related (novel?) concept: don't try to leverage
| friendships for personal economic gain, for access to a job,
| for growing your multi-level marketing business, etc.
|
| A little personal story - Many years back I was living with
| roommates and didn't have car. It would be easy way to ask for
| ride since office really couple of miles from home and really
| on the way of other guys commute. But I kinda made a point to
| just walk to work and consciously avoid asking for ride.
| Looking back I feel it really led to much better relationship
| than it would be if I had taken convenient route.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I actually disagree with this one. I think you should ask
| favours of and offer favours to your friends. It's part of
| the enmeshing of one's life with another. If they are
| willing, it shows intention and trust.
| servercobra wrote:
| There's a big difference between "hey, can you give me a
| ride to the store to pick up this large thing?" vs "hey can
| you give me a ride to work every day".
| renewiltord wrote:
| Okay, but I'm not talking about "Hey, can you give me a
| ride to work every day?" but "Hey, can you give me a ride
| to work?" every day. I think this might be a cultural
| difference, though, because I live with two close friends
| and they ask me this one often and I have no problem
| doing it or not based on whether I can. If it's a small
| deal, I might accelerate my morning routine so I can drop
| them off on my way to work. If I can't, I usually just
| say so.
|
| I have a few different friend groups and I'm conscious of
| different cultural mores, though. The group where this is
| common has a certain low-social-distance norm.
|
| In any case, I have lots of close friends and I usually
| see people lament a lack of any, so I think it's better
| to do what I do rather than what others do. But cultural
| differences are cultural differences.
| rationalfaith wrote:
| bigChris wrote:
| So basically. Turn off the computer, delete GitHub, delete
| hackrank, turn off all my docker servers and swarms across the
| multiple library networks and then go out and talk to NPCs?
| bmacho wrote:
| pls don't delete GitHub I have stuff there
| everdrive wrote:
| Not calling them "NPCs" is probably useful as well.
| BossingAround wrote:
| We all know "friendships" are just successfully completed
| quest chains.
| skipants wrote:
| The article says they are more like daily quests :P
| beckman466 wrote:
| yeah it's a just way to covertly (by the videogamer crowd)
| call other people stupid.
| postsantum wrote:
| Nah, despising an out-group is a bonding experience
|
| https://xkcd.com/610/
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Or "normies" while we are at it. A recent trend I am noticing
| more often on HN.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Hilarious considering hackernewsians are the normies of the
| online world.
| emsy wrote:
| That's Reddit. On HN I sometimes find people with niche
| interests and expertise in all kinds of fields, which I
| like. It's also relatively civilized. You don't need to
| be a 4-chan edgelord to be not-normie.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Reddit is just HN with lower standards of communication,
| puns, one word rebuttals, all that stuff is fair game
| there.
|
| Being able to follow cultural norms of the local group is
| just about the least remarkable thing about any given
| group of humans. HN is not special.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| HN broadly participated in the moral panic over lab leak
| theory being allowed to exist. This place is far more
| 'normie' than it likes to believe itself to be and is
| nowhere near as independent thinking as it pats itself on
| the back for being. But it does exceed Reddit in the
| percentage of posters who confuse their wealth for
| wisdom.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Most people here also belong to other communities and
| code switch how they write.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| It is an interesting comment in itself. Does HN ( and
| other online communities ) have their own peculiar jargon
| and it is used to identify in-group? I definitely noticed
| some recurring phrases, but it does not appear to be..
| say.. as obvious as 4chan or imgur.
| b3morales wrote:
| It's less jargon and more tone. Whereas a sarcastically
| snarky retort might fly on most forums, here it's more
| likely to net you downvotes. But the same content
| expressed without the sarcasm will be better-received.
| hoseja wrote:
| What sort of online world are you considering here? Does
| it include facebook, twitter and reddit? Or do you mean
| the deep, niche autism-adjacent online world?
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I thought this was used typically for people "off the
| spectrum".
| cehrlich wrote:
| Agreed, "normies" is a fine shorthand for "people who are
| not concerned with the niche thing we're currently talking
| about", but seeing people who think of it as an actual
| category that they judge people by is a dangerous mental
| model that a lot of people on here seem to fall victim to.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. People are multidimensional. Most people
| may not care for your particular captivating niche
| interest, but some will find your excitement about it
| interesting and enjoy your excitement about it. And you
| can reciprocate that feeling towards their niche
| interests (almost everyone has at least one). Toss
| everyone who doesn't care about your thing into the same
| "normie" pile at your peril.
| fartcannon wrote:
| We are amall group primates, it's our nature. Us vs Them.
| In and Out groups. Everyone is a victim of it.
| ironmagma wrote:
| It's also our nature to beat each other up on occasion.
| That doesn't mean we _have_ to be victim of it.
| javajosh wrote:
| Maybe _your_ narrow-minded group believes in in- and out-
| groups, but not mine!
| antisthenes wrote:
| You will burn in sparrow-hell!
|
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF3JLYwXUAAqDPP.jpg
| javajosh wrote:
| Not sure how it applies, but it is funny in its own
| right. I mean, it's a good example of in- and out-groups,
| but it's not a good example of a group that denies the
| existence of out-groups (which is admittedly more self-
| referential and weird. You know, like an xkcd cartoon.)
| erklik wrote:
| Ahh. You mean your "in-group" of people who don't believe
| in "in-groups".
|
| This is tongue-in-cheek. :)
| javajosh wrote:
| There was a time I would lamented the need to be so
| explicit. But now, I'm just grateful the point got
| across. Communication seems to happen less and less
| reliably, with more error modes with greater negative
| emotional impact, and I worry that this implies the
| existence of some sort of inevitable drift between my
| brain and other people's brains. And I'm not sure if the
| solution is to bridge the gap, or just keep going and
| learn to accept inane resistance with some combination of
| stoicism and resigned amusement.
| swayvil wrote:
| Which is ironic, because hackernewsians are the most
| conventional people this side of the Pentecostals.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Sheesh, Bethesda seems to have set staggeringly low
| expectations of NPCs...
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Turn off the computer, delete GitHub...
|
| I've met a few people on github that could become real-world
| friends if circumstances ever bring us to the same place or we
| clicked in some additional ways. But yeah, that's not really
| happening in a pull request ;-)
| neya wrote:
| TLDR;
|
| - Attention
|
| - Accumulaton
|
| - Intention
|
| - Ritual
|
| - Imagination
|
| - Grace
|
| You're welcome.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| AIDA!!!!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr3ENE8uqr4
| Zababa wrote:
| I don't know if something is missing from this article or if I
| have a very restrictive view of friendship. For example, when I
| was in college, there were a few people with which I talked
| pretty much everyday, had lunch with them, went to class with
| them. However, I don't really consider them my friends. They were
| a bit more like "colleagues". We never saw each others outside of
| college, and spending time with them doesn't fill me with energy
| like when I spend time with my friends. There are lots of things
| that they don't "get" if I talk about them, not as in
| "understand" but as in "get" on a fundamental level.
|
| Following the framework of the article, either "attention" was
| missing, or something is missing from the article. In French we
| have an expression, "atomes crochus", which would be equivalent
| to "chemistry" in English. Without that, friendship isn't really
| possible for me, I'll always get "stuck" only at a certain level
| with those people. There's no mention of chemistry at all in this
| article. I get that it's a bit unfair, you can't decide to have
| good chemistry with someone, but at least for me that's how
| things are.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Friendship requires a shared experience in more than one
| context. Since you only saw those people in one context they
| did not become friends.
| Zababa wrote:
| I don't think that's true, I've made friends at school while
| only seeing them at school. I saw them in other contexts only
| after being friends with them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-13 23:02 UTC)