5 ms·

> Most parties consist of unrewarding, mundane chit-chat, easily forgotten. You can choose the parties you go to, choose the people you talk to at those partie

> Most parties consist of unrewarding, mundane chit-chat, easily forgotten. You can choose the parties you go to, choose the people you talk to at those parties, and in those conversations, you're an equal participant. Finding meaningful, deep conversation with strangers at parties is possible. It does require some skill and patience, and it requires you "submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known," as the quote goes. By that I mean that you can talk about the things you care about in a conversation, and you run the risk that other people will judge you poorly for it. It takes some personal fortitude to put yourself out there. > Going to parties in the hopes of finding a new "life long friend" or "beneficial relationship" is like playing the lottery. Either I keep winning the lottery, or there's something at play here besides luck. This is a skill you can learn. It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. There are also entire books, blog posts, etc. written on it, if you care. It's intellectually lazy to casually dismiss things... like going to parties, sports, reading fiction, watching movies... you don't have to like parties, you don't have to be good at parties, but that doesn't mean that they're sour grapes.

erikbye 5y ago
> Either I keep winning the lottery, or there's something at play here besides luck. Really? You have found several life-long friends at parties? How old are you? What's your definition of 'friend' in this case? How good of a friend are we talking? Most of your friends and acquaintances are not relationships formed at educational institutions or workplaces? First, you have to be at least 40+ to even begin deeming a relationship "life-long", even then it's somewhat hyperbole. Very few of my friends have even struck up 1 such relationship from such events. I think it's rare. Purely anecdotal of course, looking at the people in my own life and that of my friends'. > This is a skill you can learn. It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. There are also entire books, blog posts, etc. written on it, if you care. Wait, let me get this right. What exactly are you saying is a skill one can learn? Meeting life-long friends at parties? Are you talking about manipulation? Exploitation? "How to win friends and influence people?" Bullshit like presenting not your true self, but a likable facade in order to please other people and meet social expectations?
- klodolph 5y ago
  Yes, I have found life-long friends at parties. Good enough to bare your soul, discuss intimate problems. > Wait, let me get this right. What exactly are you saying is a skill one can learn? Meeting life-long friends at parties? Are you talking about manipulation? Exploitation? "How to win friends and influence people?" That took a dark turn. The skill is the ability to have worthwhile conversations with new people. That’s all. I don’t know what you put under the umbrella of “manipulation”, but if you look at the book “How to win friends and influence people”, you’ll see that the advice is pretty simple stuff like “listen to people”, “remember people’s names”, or “be sincere”. This stuff sounds all so basic and obvious when it’s written down, but if you observe people in the wild, you’ll see people who are good at talking with others, and people who make obvious mistakes, like talking about themselves too much, belittling people, or being fake. If you are good at the surface-level skills, people will get more comfortable around you and talk more honestly about more sensitive topics. The conversations get more interesting and from there you can develop the seeds of friendship.
sdoering 5y ago
> This is a skill you can learn. This assumes it is a skill one has to learn. This assumes there is value in learning this for everybody as well as an overarching value that makes this skill universally worthwhile learning. > It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. I agree wholeheartedly. Like every skill one needs to practice, make mistakes, learn and become better over time. If one decides that learning this has value in/adds value to one's life. > if you care Again assuming that one needs to care. This is quite condescending. This sounds like coming from an enlightened position with the need to show the truth of your ways to the lowlies. > It's intellectually lazy to casually dismiss things QED Nice as hominem here. You are not arguing, you are attacking. There is no additional signal towards a shared understanding. You are fighting from an entrenched position you are trying to proof to be the truth for everybody. > you don't have to be good at parties, but that doesn't mean that they're sour grapes. If one doesn't find value in parties, socializing and the likes, why do others feel the need to argue that they are wrong? Why do you feel the need to attack and state universally that parties are good and OP is wrong? I think there are people who gain value from different forms of socializing. And that is good for them. And there are people who don't. And don't need to, to be of value to themselves and society. Why can't we not accommodate them and understand that they don't gain value from that? Why should we argue for these people to learn that skill. Can't one respect that and interact with these people on their turf? In their chosen way?
- klodolph 5y ago
  You’re definitely responding to a lot of things that I didn’t say… a bit too much for me to respond point by point. Let me just summarize by saying that I intend no criticism of people who don’t like parties, but these dismissals of parties as mostly “unrewarding, mundane chit-chat, easily forgotten” seems to stem from sour grapes more than anything else.
  - sdoering 5y ago
    > Let me just summarize by saying that I intend no criticism of people who don’t like parties, Fair. I am glad to now understand your point better. > seems to stem from sour grapes more than anything else. I would call it experience, but that is semantics.

erikbye 5y ago

> Either I keep winning the lottery, or there's something at play here besides luck. Really? You have found several life-long friends at parties? How old are you? What's your definition of 'friend' in this case? How good of a friend are we talking? Most of your friends and acquaintances are not relationships formed at educational institutions or workplaces? First, you have to be at least 40+ to even begin deeming a relationship "life-long", even then it's somewhat hyperbole. Very few of my friends have even struck up 1 such relationship from such events. I think it's rare. Purely anecdotal of course, looking at the people in my own life and that of my friends'. > This is a skill you can learn. It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. There are also entire books, blog posts, etc. written on it, if you care. Wait, let me get this right. What exactly are you saying is a skill one can learn? Meeting life-long friends at parties? Are you talking about manipulation? Exploitation? "How to win friends and influence people?" Bullshit like presenting not your true self, but a likable facade in order to please other people and meet social expectations?

klodolph 5y ago
Yes, I have found life-long friends at parties. Good enough to bare your soul, discuss intimate problems. > Wait, let me get this right. What exactly are you saying is a skill one can learn? Meeting life-long friends at parties? Are you talking about manipulation? Exploitation? "How to win friends and influence people?" That took a dark turn. The skill is the ability to have worthwhile conversations with new people. That’s all. I don’t know what you put under the umbrella of “manipulation”, but if you look at the book “How to win friends and influence people”, you’ll see that the advice is pretty simple stuff like “listen to people”, “remember people’s names”, or “be sincere”. This stuff sounds all so basic and obvious when it’s written down, but if you observe people in the wild, you’ll see people who are good at talking with others, and people who make obvious mistakes, like talking about themselves too much, belittling people, or being fake. If you are good at the surface-level skills, people will get more comfortable around you and talk more honestly about more sensitive topics. The conversations get more interesting and from there you can develop the seeds of friendship.

sdoering 5y ago

> This is a skill you can learn. This assumes it is a skill one has to learn. This assumes there is value in learning this for everybody as well as an overarching value that makes this skill universally worthwhile learning. > It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. I agree wholeheartedly. Like every skill one needs to practice, make mistakes, learn and become better over time. If one decides that learning this has value in/adds value to one's life. > if you care Again assuming that one needs to care. This is quite condescending. This sounds like coming from an enlightened position with the need to show the truth of your ways to the lowlies. > It's intellectually lazy to casually dismiss things QED Nice as hominem here. You are not arguing, you are attacking. There is no additional signal towards a shared understanding. You are fighting from an entrenched position you are trying to proof to be the truth for everybody. > you don't have to be good at parties, but that doesn't mean that they're sour grapes. If one doesn't find value in parties, socializing and the likes, why do others feel the need to argue that they are wrong? Why do you feel the need to attack and state universally that parties are good and OP is wrong? I think there are people who gain value from different forms of socializing. And that is good for them. And there are people who don't. And don't need to, to be of value to themselves and society. Why can't we not accommodate them and understand that they don't gain value from that? Why should we argue for these people to learn that skill. Can't one respect that and interact with these people on their turf? In their chosen way?

klodolph 5y ago
You’re definitely responding to a lot of things that I didn’t say… a bit too much for me to respond point by point. Let me just summarize by saying that I intend no criticism of people who don’t like parties, but these dismissals of parties as mostly “unrewarding, mundane chit-chat, easily forgotten” seems to stem from sour grapes more than anything else.
- sdoering 5y ago
  > Let me just summarize by saying that I intend no criticism of people who don’t like parties, Fair. I am glad to now understand your point better. > seems to stem from sour grapes more than anything else. I would call it experience, but that is semantics.