[HN Gopher] How to really know another person
___________________________________________________________________
How to really know another person
Author : gmays
Score : 76 points
Date : 2022-10-02 04:54 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (hiddenbrain.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (hiddenbrain.org)
| belkarx wrote:
| Better answer to the title question:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/style/no-37-big-wedding-o...
|
| Some researchers got together and devised questions that get to
| the vulnerable parts of a person's life, giving you that
| connection rather efficiently (conversation while following the
| questions, allowing for tangents, has taken me 1-2 hours on
| average).
| jderick wrote:
| tldr:
|
| "So you're saying the best way of figuring out what's inside
| someone else's mind is to ask them?"
|
| "That's right."
| dsjoerg wrote:
| THANK YOU
| biomcgary wrote:
| People think things that range from typical to highly atypical.
| The more typical your thought patterns, the higher the
| probability that others can infer your thinking. This leads to
| more successful social interactions because people will infer
| your thinking incorrectly less often.
|
| This is one significant reason why the neurodivergent (e.g.,
| autism spectrum) often have social interaction issues. Highly
| intelligent people also have out of the box thinking that is
| hard to predict, but they often have increased capacity to
| infer the thinking of others and adjust accordingly (if they
| want).
| aidenn0 wrote:
| > People think things that range from typical to highly
| atypical. The more typical your thought patterns, the higher
| the probability that others can infer your thinking. This
| leads to more successful social interactions because people
| will infer your thinking incorrectly less often.
|
| I do think this is true, but as I've gotten older I have come
| to the conclusion that the two most typical people in the
| world would still fail to infer each other's thinking because
| typical thinking misattributes motivation in others to an
| almost absurd degree.
| badcppdev wrote:
| "So often, we think we know what other people are thinking. ".
|
| Do people really think that they know what other people are
| thinking?
| astrobe_ wrote:
| Yes, it seems that we learn to do that really early [1].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention#Knowledge_of_the_int...
| mattw2121 wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. I am in constant contact with people that are
| two ends of the spectrum. They either align malicious intent to
| every one else's actions or they are blissfully unaware of
| malicious intent at all. These are both examples of people
| thinking they know what someone else is thinking.
| Kiboneu wrote:
| Sounds like you think you know what they are thinking (about
| thinking that they know what each other is thinking).
| swader999 wrote:
| I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you aren't
| married.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| This comment caused me to spit-take.
| m463 wrote:
| on the other hand I think of this title (and the story behind
| the title):
|
| https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B004OA6KIS
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| Some of them do. And if it turns out that you were actually not
| thinking what they thought you were thinking -- it's your
| fault!
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Oh yes. When I was a kid, my dad did this to me constantly.
|
| I'm neurodivergent and he was completely wrong most of the
| time. I did not have an ideal childhood.
| jonmc12 wrote:
| I think no one has posted the main thesis of this discussion.
| It's not just about "asking them", it's about the NYU
| psychologist's research that has systematically found no evidence
| for all counterfactuals other than asking a person about their
| internal state.
|
| Knowing _how_ to ask someone what they are thinking /feeling is a
| key skillset of anyone building a product for someone else. Its
| nuanced enough that books like "The Mom Test" break this down for
| entrepreneurs to implement tactically. On the other hand, West's
| research also suggests that one can comfortably underweight their
| own instincts laden with ego-centric and culture-centric biases.
| Further, you can also comfortably underweight the observations of
| your colleagues who might assert empathic abilities.
|
| Perhaps the most interesting segment of this podcast was the
| story of how the author and her tenured colleague were able to
| dismiss their own intuitions about a acrimonious rivalry with one
| another and evaluate their relationship scientifically through
| hundreds of questions from their own research. They went from
| disliking one another to getting married.
| leobg wrote:
| Wish there was a service where I can plug in the URL of this
| podcast to get a Whisper transcript, separated into paragraphs,
| and with headlines for skimming. So I can decide whether or not
| to invest an hour of my time to actually listen to the whole
| thing.
| badcc wrote:
| Better yet.. podcast -> Whisper -> text summarization model...
| sounds like it'd be fun to hack together
| leobg wrote:
| If you do, please post!
| m463 wrote:
| whisper.sh: $ curl
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33052985 | grep -A10
| 'tldr' jderick 4 hours ago | prev | next [-]
| tldr: "So you're saying the best way of figuring
| out what's inside someone else's mind is to ask them?"
| "That's right."
| karmakaze wrote:
| There's already clues there as to what sort of angle this might
| be approached from. The speakers book "Jerks at Work: Toxic
| Coworkers and What to Do About Them, by Tessa West, 2022." as
| well as their work and other cited research is listed on the
| page.
|
| I just started listening, there were segments with the first
| being 15m. I would say that they're a collection of anecdata
| stories on the subject. I napped for a segment in the middle,
| dreaming about visiting a treehouse office, and was awake again
| for the end. I didn't find any big answers but also don't mind
| having passed the time.
| pvinis wrote:
| I'd rather get your takes on episodes as a paid service over
| the idea of the parent :p
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| I agree -- where can I sign up? :)
| baxtr wrote:
| So you'd pay someone to listen to Podcasts and send you a
| summary?
| EarlKing wrote:
| But what would we call it? Slashpod? Poddot? Either way,
| you'd be continuing the proud tradition of not reading
| the summary.
| jbotz wrote:
| The "meat" of the thing was right in the middle, so you may
| have missed it... it's simply that according to her research
| the best way of figuring out what someone is thinking or
| feeling is to ask them. Doh.
| swader999 wrote:
| Thanks, this is one of those times where it would have been
| more useful to read the comments first.
|
| On a positive note, the voices were both soothing enough
| that I did get a short refreshing nap out of it.
| adinisom wrote:
| Transcribed using 'base' model:
|
| https://pastebin.com/M5276AFE
| saddist0 wrote:
| And a stab at auto-summary using tools4noobs:
|
| https://pastebin.com/VY6M489T
| leobg wrote:
| Wow. Thank you!
| Etheryte wrote:
| I'm surprised by how good the result is, what tool did you
| use for this?
| mkaic wrote:
| Judging from OP's comment, they used OpenAI's Whisper
| speech-to-text transcription model, which was recently
| released open-source: https://openai.com/blog/whisper/
| Etheryte wrote:
| Ah okay, thank you, I was not aware of this and so I
| didn't know what to search for. Thanks a lot for the
| help, much appreciated.
| serpix wrote:
| the answer is "You ask them". Saved you one hour.
| cbfrench wrote:
| _slaps forehead_
|
| Why didn't I think of that before?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| what's a Whisper transcript? (looking, enticed)
| leobg wrote:
| Transcript created by OpenAI's new "Whisper" language model.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| thanks
| sthatipamala wrote:
| I made a similar thing for the Lex Friedman podcast. It
| transcribes the audio and runs it through a summarization
| model. You can then search the entire corpus to find relevant
| snippets from episodes:
|
| http://lexicon.lol
| abhayhegde wrote:
| It was too long to go through the podcast.
|
| When it comes to getting to know a person, there is no shortcut
| than spending time with them, asking them questions, putting
| yourself with them in various circumstances. One of the best ways
| to tap into someone's personality is to go for a trip with them.
| throwaway2203 wrote:
| Anyone else get the feeling that the information density of
| podcasts is just really low? I'd rather follow along a dense
| narrative than listen to a bunch of people chat with time wasted
| in pleasantries/jokes/etc.
| autoexec wrote:
| I have this problem with radiolab. A lot of people really love
| it, but it's so repetitive, filled with pointless filler
| sounds/music, and takes so long to get to the point that even
| when I'm very interested in the topic I often rage quit. At
| least a little banter/joking is new information even when it
| isn't on topic.
| dbcurtis wrote:
| Depends on the podcast. Well-produced ones are tightly edited,
| and the moderator keeps the conversation tight. That takes some
| work (and budget) to do. I find I mainly listen to big-budget
| podcasts, not on purpose, but because I won't put up with low
| information density and all that is left after that are
| podcasts with the budget and production values to keep it
| tight.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| most podcasts select for those that can fill the air
|
| so succinctness is not selected for
|
| note that many of the mid tier youtubers are so verbose that
| even 2x isn't good enough
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Depends on the podcast but Hidden Brain has always been more on
| the easy listening/infotainment side of things, rather than
| something more serious.
|
| You might like The Economist, which has the entire publication
| professionally read each week, and you can listen at 2x speed,
| just like a podcast.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| Well said, most podcasts I listen to these days I skip about
| five to seven minutes in to dispense with the chat and get to
| meat of the issue.
| e40 wrote:
| I agree most of them (90+ percent?) are milking one small thing
| for ad money.
|
| The exception to the rule: Huberman Labs. He has 2.5 hour pods
| that are so dense I have to consume them over days.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Highly depends on the podcast for me. I don't generally listen
| to the conversational ones, and usually I listen to podcasts
| while doing something else like cleaning or working on my
| house.
|
| Arms Control Wonk, In Defense of Plants, The Long Now, and The
| History of English are some of my more favorite information
| dense podcasts.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Thanks for the tips (will check them out, don't know how they
| turn out yet)
| klondike_klive wrote:
| I second The History of English - every one of them,
| especially the ones around the Great Vowel Shift, is a
| genuine joy- of-learning experience.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| Nope. I find good podcasts to be at the right level. Hidden
| brain for the most part hits that. To me, information density
| isn't as important as to how it is communicated. I actually
| like some interviewer interviewee panels because they draw out
| connections that you may not get in an information dense dump.
| Some of these podcasts episodes (like this one) though are
| interviews about the book the interviewee wrote, so the density
| you are looking for is likely in the book.
|
| If you like information dense podcasts you'd like Huberman's
| podcast as he just lays everything out there.
| lukas099 wrote:
| If podcasts were information-dense, they'd be useless (for me)
| because it would be way to easy to miss important points.
| saurik wrote:
| Since when is "information density" the goal of that format?
| Imagine trying to complain that the "information density" of
| The Tonight Show Starring Jim Fallon--or hell: The Howard Stern
| Show ;P--was "really low". The reason people listen to a bunch
| of people chatting is because they actively enjoy the
| personalities and the banter, wanting to get a feel for the
| people involved, not because they are looking for the fastest
| way to get to the point.
| alexpetralia wrote:
| I like to think that some conversations are about the
| transfer of information while others are about the transfer
| of feeling.
| throw10920 wrote:
| Excellent point!
|
| The failure to understand this distinction would explain
| some strange conversations I've had with some people...
| autoexec wrote:
| > Imagine trying to complain that the "information density"
| of The Tonight Show Starring Jim Fallon--or hell: The Howard
| Stern Show ;P
|
| those are largely comedy though right? Comedy is too
| dependent on timing to worry about information density.
|
| It also depends on why you tuned in. If you start a podcast
| in order to hear a bunch of people chatting and joking for an
| hour that's one thing, but when you hit the play button with
| the goal of learning about something it's more like a lecture
| that contains 20 minutes of information padded out to an
| hour.
| ozbead wrote:
| If you are remotely interested in philosophy, Philosophize
| This! is a great podcast. I listen to it when walking the dog
| and sometimes I have to rewind a minute or two when I get
| distracted by something enough to miss a few sentences. It's
| quite dense but really informative and entertaining.
| https://www.philosophizethis.org/
| cwkoss wrote:
| IMO podcasts without transcriptions shouldn't be allowed on HN.
| The vast majority of readers aren't going to invest an hour
| listening to the whole thing, so any discussion is just going
| to be about the title.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Acclimating to voices heard at 2x speed was the best
| investment I made during the pandemic.
| snvzz wrote:
| And that's still at least 10x slower than reading a
| transcript.
| joe-collins wrote:
| IMO podcasts without transcriptions shouldn't be allowed,
| period.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| There are podcasts and podcasts. Some are information dense,
| some are chatty. Different purposes for different moods, styles
| and people. When it comes to technical stuff yes, the
| transcript makes for an easy visual scan over whether it is
| even worth listening.
| molsongolden wrote:
| David Perell's North Star Podcast is almost nonstop info. He
| asks great questions, sort of rapid-fire, while still keeping a
| pleasant and engaging flow. Try his Tyler Cowen interview if
| you haven't listened yet.
|
| No new episodes this year so I'm not sure if he plans to
| continue but the few I've heard have been great. Hoping the
| rest of the archive is similar.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Yup. Same thing with articles. It's all lazy production.
|
| This is why people like HN.. You just read the headlines, and
| see if someone posts a tldr so you don't have to waste your
| time reading or listening to an hour of unstructured data
| belkarx wrote:
| Exactly. It's so much more prevalent when reading the
| transcript - you can see how many words are wasted and how much
| longer it takes to convey something in that form as opposed to
| an article, _however_ it has the advantage of not engaging your
| visual system so ultimately allows you to parallelize.
| itsmemattchung wrote:
| Have had to learn this the hard way -- with friends and family--
| and reprogram myself to:
|
| never assume what's going on inside of someone else's head.
| davesque wrote:
| I don't think this is reliable. I've only met a handful of people
| in my own life who are able to actually report their state of
| mind without mixing in judgements about why they feel a certain
| way. In other words, people who can resist the influence of their
| emotions long enough to describe them.
|
| Most people I've met are always indicating in various ways the
| degree to which they are at the mercy of their own feelings.
| prottog wrote:
| "Live with a man 40 years. Share his house, his meals. Speak on
| every subject. Then tie him up, and hold him over the volcano's
| edge. And on that day, you will finally meet the man."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-06 23:01 UTC)