3 ms·

> I will let someone violate every rule on this list and will do my best to give them the conversation they want. I just won’t seek out more conversations in th

by xnickb 4y ago

> I will let someone violate every rule on this list and will do my best to give them the conversation they want. I just won’t seek out more conversations in the future. Call me weird, but for me this mindset is more rude than all the "rules" put together. You let the other person lead the conversation and invest into it only to never seek conversation with them again, leaving them wondering what went wrong. Wasting someone else's time aside, this is incredibly rude. Yet this person puts themself on a pedestal high enough that they can definite "rules" of having conversations. The first rule on the list should be to respect the person you're talking to. Otherwise there's no reason to continue engaging in a conversation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nicbou 4y ago
I don’t think it’s rude. It’s letting both parties save face. I imagine that brutal honesty could instantly kill the vibe and throw a person off their game for the evening. Aside from that, some awkward starts can develop into interesting conversations. It pays to show a little patience and kindness. You don’t want to cut your losses too early.
- xnickb 4y ago
  I agree, yet that doesn't seem to be the strategy the author employs. Nor do many other people. In fact having an argumented discussion is heavily discouraged in those "polite" groups and being agreeable is seen as the only acceptable behavior. In other words I'd much rather have this argument/conversation with you than engage in a conversation with a sole reason to cheer the article and everyone who read. But then again I'm on HN on New Years, so by default I'm not a winner in the social interaction game.
adamisom 4y ago
Unclear what you think you’re supposed to do if you decide ‘hmm I probably won’t voluntarily seek out conversation with them in the future’. Making that personal choice doesn’t mean you don’t respect them; it’s not ‘fake’ to have the grace of ‘showing up’ in the interaction, even if it’s not going to be a repeat interaction. The author didn’t sufficiently bow and pronounce himself but a humble peasant, but that doesn’t mean he should be targeted to be knocked down a few pegs; we all must make our own “rules”, or principles and guidelines, for interacting with one another.
- xnickb 4y ago
  > Unclear what you think you’re supposed to do if you decide ‘hmm I probably won’t voluntarily seek out conversation with them in the future’. For example if a person interrupting you is not acceptable for you, it's healthy to point that out. For example I'm okay woth being interrupting and I don't see a problem interrupting someone who is making a point I already understood but they're being unnecessarily verbose. Likewise, I'd point out that I resonate with the points they're trying to express and they don't need to be as verbose to make sure they're understood. However I do see it as rude when a person doesn't understand the point someone is trying to make and then reacts with "Nice" after a long explanation and never seeks a conversation again, because "they didn't get enough time under the spotlight". That being said, I generally align with what is said in the article, but it is presented from a very weird perspective of a "I-know-it-all" kinda person.

by xnickb 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nicbou 4y ago

I don’t think it’s rude. It’s letting both parties save face. I imagine that brutal honesty could instantly kill the vibe and throw a person off their game for the evening. Aside from that, some awkward starts can develop into interesting conversations. It pays to show a little patience and kindness. You don’t want to cut your losses too early.

xnickb 4y ago
I agree, yet that doesn't seem to be the strategy the author employs. Nor do many other people. In fact having an argumented discussion is heavily discouraged in those "polite" groups and being agreeable is seen as the only acceptable behavior. In other words I'd much rather have this argument/conversation with you than engage in a conversation with a sole reason to cheer the article and everyone who read. But then again I'm on HN on New Years, so by default I'm not a winner in the social interaction game.

adamisom 4y ago

Unclear what you think you’re supposed to do if you decide ‘hmm I probably won’t voluntarily seek out conversation with them in the future’. Making that personal choice doesn’t mean you don’t respect them; it’s not ‘fake’ to have the grace of ‘showing up’ in the interaction, even if it’s not going to be a repeat interaction. The author didn’t sufficiently bow and pronounce himself but a humble peasant, but that doesn’t mean he should be targeted to be knocked down a few pegs; we all must make our own “rules”, or principles and guidelines, for interacting with one another.

xnickb 4y ago
> Unclear what you think you’re supposed to do if you decide ‘hmm I probably won’t voluntarily seek out conversation with them in the future’. For example if a person interrupting you is not acceptable for you, it's healthy to point that out. For example I'm okay woth being interrupting and I don't see a problem interrupting someone who is making a point I already understood but they're being unnecessarily verbose. Likewise, I'd point out that I resonate with the points they're trying to express and they don't need to be as verbose to make sure they're understood. However I do see it as rude when a person doesn't understand the point someone is trying to make and then reacts with "Nice" after a long explanation and never seeks a conversation again, because "they didn't get enough time under the spotlight". That being said, I generally align with what is said in the article, but it is presented from a very weird perspective of a "I-know-it-all" kinda person.