6 ms·

#1 (“When you receive an invitation to a ball, answer it immediately.”) is really important. I can't tell you how many relationships (friendship, professional,

#1 (“When you receive an invitation to a ball, answer it immediately.”) is really important. I can't tell you how many relationships (friendship, professional, or romantic) I've screwed up simply by not being a prompt responder. In the times, places, and relationships I've made prompt-responding a priority, everything goes better.

2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
Surprising how relevant most of that still is.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Yes, some of them happen to align with behaviour that makes life easier for others, such as answering an invitation early. But, taken as collection, they are inaccurate in what they leave out: The very idea of women having the same agency as men does not make an appearance. Sure, they can reject your "invitation to dance", but without such an invitation, they are, apparently, relegated to "wallflower"-status, soon to be relegated to "old and ugly". "Going home with you" also doesn't make her a _____ anymore than it makes you a _____ to go home with her. From experience and observation, "going home with" someone tends to make people _happy_, and occasionally _a couple_. It's also a textbook example how sexism hurts men as well as women: assuming that a relationship's success depends on her attraction to him as much as his attraction to her, these etiquette fail by using an inefficient search algorithm. He will sort the women according to attractiveness to him and "go home" with the first that is willing to sneak out the back with him. That leaves part of the search space unexplored. Specifically, there could be another woman he is only marginally less attracted to, but that is completely infatuated with him. Unfortunately, she actually believed these rules and failed to get his attention :( Edit: removed Feynman reference
  - lisper 9y ago
    I have no idea why you're getting down voted. I thought you presented a very cogent argument.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Thanks! I noticed it only started after I added the last paragraph, which contains the word a man shall not use on HN, not even in discussing gender etiquette of Victorian Fucking England.
      - hluska 9y ago
        No, that part was fine. Your 'surely you're joking' is extremely passive aggressive and severely weakens your entire comment.
    - Mendenhall 9y ago
      I down voted because of the "surely youre joking" comment. Its a petty passive aggressive insult to the parent, like the parent post was so obtuse that they must be joking. Ironic to me in an etiquette post.
      - matt4077 9y ago
        Oh, but it was just an allusion to him, the venerated (and venereal) God of violating etiquette, Richard Feynman.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    The art here is separating the baby and the bath water. If you replace "man" and "woman" in the text with "person with high social capital" and "person with low social capital", the present day relevance reveals itself. If you have high social capital, you have a duty to an every effort to raise those around you who have low social capital, to not draw attention to yourself, and most certainly to be very careful that you're not making anyone feel uncomfortable (infinitely more so if you're the host). Yes, victorian society automatically assigned high capital to men and low capital to women, but they assigned significant duties to the holders of this capital. It's this ethos of duty going with privilege that resonates a lot (with me, at least). As for "going home", there are some pretty straight forward reasons for that: reliable birth control, pre or post conception, was not a thing, and the cost of unwanted pregnancy was disproportionally (to the point of being entirely one sided) on the woman (and, by extension, her family). So, a strong social imperative to avoid this situation existed - but, notably, there is as much a duty on part of the man to not even ask, as there is for the woman to reject it. This constraint has almost entirely gone away, but we still have rather analogous discussions around consent (and rather hyperbolically IMO, but touching on the same notes, rape culture).
    - matt4077 9y ago
      I agree. These rules are a product of their time, and were probably good advice for those seeking to fit in. But I felt it's important to point out how they are actually-not-so-subtly producing the tiered society you mention, if only for the fact that this thread is already filling with comments of how uncanny it is that they are still so relevant. And, yes, that is true in so far as you won't attract much negative attention if you behave as prescribed. But note that the reasons these may have been useful in the past have long since disappeared, so I'm expecting you all to follow that no-gossip rule even if I happen to "go home with" her , or him, or them.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    This is the pre-contraception pre-sexual revolution era we're talking about. Maybe people aren't familiar with Pride and Prejudice? Dances of this form are a key part of the social structure that novel revels in. It's an environment where primogeniture and inheritance are extremely important, where women can have no income independent of a man (and may have their ability to own property independently curtailed as well). Marriage in that context requires virginity. Sleeping around is potentially life-ruining for a woman. (Not quite so much for a man, although still indecorous; more sexism) Nobody in that context is going to be exploring the search space though any means other than polite conversation. Men might be sleeping around, but only with women of lower social status who can be paid off or can't refuse (or have their refusal taken seriously: "rape culture"). Women could only acquire agency in this context because the risk of pregnancy was mitigated, so the lifetime costs and medical risks (4% maternal fatality rate!) of a child would not fall on them. In that environment, unmarried wombs were treated like barrels of gunpowder: keep away from naked flames.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Yes, but what's at issue is the opening comment: > Surprising how relevant most of that still is. ...and how some of these rules, even if they were established in reaction to possible real-world consequences, can be perpetuated long after better methods have been invented to protect against harm.
  - zeristor 9y ago
    The Stable Marriage problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem This BBC documentary ("The Secret Rules of Modern Living Algorithms") had a bit about this: https://youtu.be/T1os88EvPc4?t=19m11s https://youtu.be/T1os88EvPc4?t=19m11s
- usrusr 9y ago
  Well, it's a contemporary digest of a body of rules "far too numerous to cover in a single article", so there's surely a bit of survivorship bias at play here. Still some nice finds there, some of those that are still valid could deserve more recognition.
awjr 9y ago
I would go further than this. If a task would take less than 5 minutes, do that task now. Do not put it off. Seriously, just DO IT. It saves you so much time and hassle down the line.
- ghaff 9y ago
  I'm not a particular fan of GTD (or time management systems in general). However, that was one thing from David Allen's book that stuck with me. You can waste a huge amount of energy or attention procrastinating about some simple item that's fast and straightforward to just do. I'm not perfect about it, but it's good advice.
- Swizec 9y ago
  Whenever I try this approach, I end up spending most of the day on meaningless 5 minute tasks and replies to communications. No real work ever gets done. My most productive days are when all 5min tasks are ignored until the last possible moment when their importance grows so much that they must be done. 90% of them turn out to not need doing at all. As a result many say I'm among the most prolific people they know, and I am nobody's idea of "who to call in emergency". ymmv
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    You still need to put the "5 minute tasks" into a priority queue. Of course if you only prioritize by time to completion long running tasks will rarely, if ever, get done. If it takes 5 minutes, but doesn't need to be done for a month, record the actual deadline and put it in a queue. When you need a break from more laborious or longer running tasks, check that queue of short tasks (prioritized by deadline) for things you can do right now to fill out the next few minutes before ducking out for lunch or whatever. I mean, we don't do this with our OS schedulers? Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else?
    - Swizec 9y ago
      > Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else? Because that's what the GTD mantra says? "If it takes less than 5 minutes, just do it immediately" I'm pointing out why in my experience that mantra doesn't work. And I've never read the actual book, so it's very likely I'm taking the mantra too literally and that's why it doesn't work.
squarefoot 9y ago
That advice was written when immediate answer meant writing a letter by hand and give it to someone who would ride his horse to the host. These days an immediate answer can be 10 seconds or less, so I'm not sure being really immediate would be a good practice. Fast yes, immediate... not sure.
- jdironman 9y ago
  I think one should weight his answer, but answer promptly. There serves no purpose of leaving question of your interest.
- joezydeco 9y ago
  An answer can be had in 10 seconds or less, but you still need to pull teeth to get people to respond to an invitation. Email, evite, SMS, whatever. You will still get a certain % of people that won't reply until you nag them for the fourth time. And then you'll still get a % of no-replies that show up at the event unannounced.
  - Jaruzel 9y ago
    This is really something that annoys me in the 21st century; that despite a formal invite (FB Event, email, even olde-worldy paper invite) people feel it's still OK to either hedge their bets right up to the last minute, or simply not show up even if they had previously rsvp'd to the contrary. Most people these days simply have no manners.
    - monksy 9y ago
      Cut them out of your life.
      - Jtsummers 9y ago
        I just stopped inviting people to things when they failed to respond or failed to abide by their response without reasonable notice. They still get invited to certain events, but since I tend to be the person charged with organizing all social events for my group I was inviting people to things on a weekly basis. The non-responders and the yes-but-don't-show folks only get invited to monthly and other less frequent events (usually big ones, like someone's 40th birthday). At best, I count their responses as 1/2 responses. Every one that has the habit of not showing after saying yes has a 50/50 shot of getting a seat if they all manage to show up.
aantix 9y ago
So... relationships have dissolved because you weren't a prompt responder? Nothing else to sustain them? Maybe you were thoughtful in conversation? Maybe you actually asked about their family/parents/career, and gave more than a superficial listen? Maybe you actually remember their birthday? Or you always tune the radio station to whatever music they prefer when riding in the car? These "relationships" sound pretty fucking flimsy to begin with.
- sctb 9y ago
  Would you please not leap to such personal nastiness? It breaks the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
maaaats 9y ago
I'm a bit the same. Never committing fully. It doesn't have to be immediate in today's age, but I want to be better at not waiting until the last minute to say I wont come. I know how annoying that is when I'm the one taking initiative to a get-together.
- robinjfisher 9y ago
  The key is being able to respond promptly and being committed to the answer one has given which aligns with the point you raise on timeliness. There are two discourtesies: 1) Not providing a committed answer until the last minute; and 2) Reneging on a previous commitment, particularly at the last moment. Responding promptly is important if only to say, "I cannot commit at the moment but I will let you know for definite by [date]", where date is sufficiently in advance of the event in question.

2muchcoffeeman 9y ago

Surprising how relevant most of that still is.

matt4077 9y ago
Yes, some of them happen to align with behaviour that makes life easier for others, such as answering an invitation early. But, taken as collection, they are inaccurate in what they leave out: The very idea of women having the same agency as men does not make an appearance. Sure, they can reject your "invitation to dance", but without such an invitation, they are, apparently, relegated to "wallflower"-status, soon to be relegated to "old and ugly". "Going home with you" also doesn't make her a _____ anymore than it makes you a _____ to go home with her. From experience and observation, "going home with" someone tends to make people _happy_, and occasionally _a couple_. It's also a textbook example how sexism hurts men as well as women: assuming that a relationship's success depends on her attraction to him as much as his attraction to her, these etiquette fail by using an inefficient search algorithm. He will sort the women according to attractiveness to him and "go home" with the first that is willing to sneak out the back with him. That leaves part of the search space unexplored. Specifically, there could be another woman he is only marginally less attracted to, but that is completely infatuated with him. Unfortunately, she actually believed these rules and failed to get his attention :( Edit: removed Feynman reference
- lisper 9y ago
  I have no idea why you're getting down voted. I thought you presented a very cogent argument.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Thanks! I noticed it only started after I added the last paragraph, which contains the word a man shall not use on HN, not even in discussing gender etiquette of Victorian Fucking England.
    - hluska 9y ago
      No, that part was fine. Your 'surely you're joking' is extremely passive aggressive and severely weakens your entire comment.
  - Mendenhall 9y ago
    I down voted because of the "surely youre joking" comment. Its a petty passive aggressive insult to the parent, like the parent post was so obtuse that they must be joking. Ironic to me in an etiquette post.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Oh, but it was just an allusion to him, the venerated (and venereal) God of violating etiquette, Richard Feynman.
- mseebach 9y ago
  The art here is separating the baby and the bath water. If you replace "man" and "woman" in the text with "person with high social capital" and "person with low social capital", the present day relevance reveals itself. If you have high social capital, you have a duty to an every effort to raise those around you who have low social capital, to not draw attention to yourself, and most certainly to be very careful that you're not making anyone feel uncomfortable (infinitely more so if you're the host). Yes, victorian society automatically assigned high capital to men and low capital to women, but they assigned significant duties to the holders of this capital. It's this ethos of duty going with privilege that resonates a lot (with me, at least). As for "going home", there are some pretty straight forward reasons for that: reliable birth control, pre or post conception, was not a thing, and the cost of unwanted pregnancy was disproportionally (to the point of being entirely one sided) on the woman (and, by extension, her family). So, a strong social imperative to avoid this situation existed - but, notably, there is as much a duty on part of the man to not even ask, as there is for the woman to reject it. This constraint has almost entirely gone away, but we still have rather analogous discussions around consent (and rather hyperbolically IMO, but touching on the same notes, rape culture).
  - matt4077 9y ago
    I agree. These rules are a product of their time, and were probably good advice for those seeking to fit in. But I felt it's important to point out how they are actually-not-so-subtly producing the tiered society you mention, if only for the fact that this thread is already filling with comments of how uncanny it is that they are still so relevant. And, yes, that is true in so far as you won't attract much negative attention if you behave as prescribed. But note that the reasons these may have been useful in the past have long since disappeared, so I'm expecting you all to follow that no-gossip rule even if I happen to "go home with" her , or him, or them.
- pjc50 9y ago
  This is the pre-contraception pre-sexual revolution era we're talking about. Maybe people aren't familiar with Pride and Prejudice? Dances of this form are a key part of the social structure that novel revels in. It's an environment where primogeniture and inheritance are extremely important, where women can have no income independent of a man (and may have their ability to own property independently curtailed as well). Marriage in that context requires virginity. Sleeping around is potentially life-ruining for a woman. (Not quite so much for a man, although still indecorous; more sexism) Nobody in that context is going to be exploring the search space though any means other than polite conversation. Men might be sleeping around, but only with women of lower social status who can be paid off or can't refuse (or have their refusal taken seriously: "rape culture"). Women could only acquire agency in this context because the risk of pregnancy was mitigated, so the lifetime costs and medical risks (4% maternal fatality rate!) of a child would not fall on them. In that environment, unmarried wombs were treated like barrels of gunpowder: keep away from naked flames.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Yes, but what's at issue is the opening comment: > Surprising how relevant most of that still is. ...and how some of these rules, even if they were established in reaction to possible real-world consequences, can be perpetuated long after better methods have been invented to protect against harm.
- zeristor 9y ago
  The Stable Marriage problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem This BBC documentary ("The Secret Rules of Modern Living Algorithms") had a bit about this: https://youtu.be/T1os88EvPc4?t=19m11s https://youtu.be/T1os88EvPc4?t=19m11s
usrusr 9y ago
Well, it's a contemporary digest of a body of rules "far too numerous to cover in a single article", so there's surely a bit of survivorship bias at play here. Still some nice finds there, some of those that are still valid could deserve more recognition.

awjr 9y ago

I would go further than this. If a task would take less than 5 minutes, do that task now. Do not put it off. Seriously, just DO IT. It saves you so much time and hassle down the line.

ghaff 9y ago
I'm not a particular fan of GTD (or time management systems in general). However, that was one thing from David Allen's book that stuck with me. You can waste a huge amount of energy or attention procrastinating about some simple item that's fast and straightforward to just do. I'm not perfect about it, but it's good advice.
Swizec 9y ago
Whenever I try this approach, I end up spending most of the day on meaningless 5 minute tasks and replies to communications. No real work ever gets done. My most productive days are when all 5min tasks are ignored until the last possible moment when their importance grows so much that they must be done. 90% of them turn out to not need doing at all. As a result many say I'm among the most prolific people they know, and I am nobody's idea of "who to call in emergency". ymmv
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  You still need to put the "5 minute tasks" into a priority queue. Of course if you only prioritize by time to completion long running tasks will rarely, if ever, get done. If it takes 5 minutes, but doesn't need to be done for a month, record the actual deadline and put it in a queue. When you need a break from more laborious or longer running tasks, check that queue of short tasks (prioritized by deadline) for things you can do right now to fill out the next few minutes before ducking out for lunch or whatever. I mean, we don't do this with our OS schedulers? Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else?
  - Swizec 9y ago
    > Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else? Because that's what the GTD mantra says? "If it takes less than 5 minutes, just do it immediately" I'm pointing out why in my experience that mantra doesn't work. And I've never read the actual book, so it's very likely I'm taking the mantra too literally and that's why it doesn't work.

squarefoot 9y ago

That advice was written when immediate answer meant writing a letter by hand and give it to someone who would ride his horse to the host. These days an immediate answer can be 10 seconds or less, so I'm not sure being really immediate would be a good practice. Fast yes, immediate... not sure.

jdironman 9y ago
I think one should weight his answer, but answer promptly. There serves no purpose of leaving question of your interest.
joezydeco 9y ago
An answer can be had in 10 seconds or less, but you still need to pull teeth to get people to respond to an invitation. Email, evite, SMS, whatever. You will still get a certain % of people that won't reply until you nag them for the fourth time. And then you'll still get a % of no-replies that show up at the event unannounced.
- Jaruzel 9y ago
  This is really something that annoys me in the 21st century; that despite a formal invite (FB Event, email, even olde-worldy paper invite) people feel it's still OK to either hedge their bets right up to the last minute, or simply not show up even if they had previously rsvp'd to the contrary. Most people these days simply have no manners.
  - monksy 9y ago
    Cut them out of your life.
    - Jtsummers 9y ago
      I just stopped inviting people to things when they failed to respond or failed to abide by their response without reasonable notice. They still get invited to certain events, but since I tend to be the person charged with organizing all social events for my group I was inviting people to things on a weekly basis. The non-responders and the yes-but-don't-show folks only get invited to monthly and other less frequent events (usually big ones, like someone's 40th birthday). At best, I count their responses as 1/2 responses. Every one that has the habit of not showing after saying yes has a 50/50 shot of getting a seat if they all manage to show up.

aantix 9y ago

So... relationships have dissolved because you weren't a prompt responder? Nothing else to sustain them? Maybe you were thoughtful in conversation? Maybe you actually asked about their family/parents/career, and gave more than a superficial listen? Maybe you actually remember their birthday? Or you always tune the radio station to whatever music they prefer when riding in the car? These "relationships" sound pretty fucking flimsy to begin with.

sctb 9y ago
Would you please not leap to such personal nastiness? It breaks the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

maaaats 9y ago

I'm a bit the same. Never committing fully. It doesn't have to be immediate in today's age, but I want to be better at not waiting until the last minute to say I wont come. I know how annoying that is when I'm the one taking initiative to a get-together.

robinjfisher 9y ago
The key is being able to respond promptly and being committed to the answer one has given which aligns with the point you raise on timeliness. There are two discourtesies: 1) Not providing a committed answer until the last minute; and 2) Reneging on a previous commitment, particularly at the last moment. Responding promptly is important if only to say, "I cannot commit at the moment but I will let you know for definite by [date]", where date is sufficiently in advance of the event in question.