4 ms·

I think “who to engage” (what you are talking about) and “how to engage” (the article) are separate things. You are not gonna make quirky friends either by sit

I think “who to engage” (what you are talking about) and “how to engage” (the article) are separate things. You are not gonna make quirky friends either by sitting in the corner scowling either.

smokel 3y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. My problem with the article is that it presupposes (incorrectly in my view) that "who to engage" with is an average person who conforms to fairly primitive statistics. This approach is common in many of the social sciences, but I think interpreting statistics to say something about the real world requires a little more effort. If 60% of the people prefer oranges over apples, that does not mean that we should burn all apple trees. If, when choosing a political party during an election, one party gets the largest share, that does not immediately imply that it is the best party, or that most people prefer it. It's tiresome that so many people simply do not see a problem with this, and it is thanks to these kinds of "scientific" nonsense stories that it keeps getting propagated. Of course, if I had simply said that I'd loved the article and that I met the author smiling over a coffee, I'd probably get more upvotes, but for now, I think my rant has some merit. Then again, the article does point out a lot of sensible things, and that can be very helpful to some people, so perhaps I should crawl back under my rock.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  I appreciate nuance and not aiming for average and I get the examples you are talking about. But I think now you are the one who’s speaking in generalities vs the case at hand :) Do you think there’s a better way to connect to people than what is described in the article? I think I am fairly in-average in my interests and yet I am pretty sure if someone came and asked me about something vs started telling me shit about themselves, I’d be much more willing to engage the former. You are welcome to disagree but what’s your alternative advice?
  - smokel 3y ago
    I'm not railing against the advice, I'm against the argumentation. This is not really clear from my previous comments -- I should've stated that context more clearly. The post suggests that scientific methods are at the basis here, but in essence it is just listing socially accepted norms that are obvious to anyone. Take for example the illustration on competence and likability. The research might be good, but the diagram itself shows no results, just a definition. And am I to believe that FBI hostage negotiation is applicable to a friendly conversation I'd like to pick up with my neighbour? It just all makes very little sense. So, yes, smile, listen, be friendly. But no, do not abuse "science" to support this.

smokel 3y ago

Thanks for pointing this out. My problem with the article is that it presupposes (incorrectly in my view) that "who to engage" with is an average person who conforms to fairly primitive statistics. This approach is common in many of the social sciences, but I think interpreting statistics to say something about the real world requires a little more effort. If 60% of the people prefer oranges over apples, that does not mean that we should burn all apple trees. If, when choosing a political party during an election, one party gets the largest share, that does not immediately imply that it is the best party, or that most people prefer it. It's tiresome that so many people simply do not see a problem with this, and it is thanks to these kinds of "scientific" nonsense stories that it keeps getting propagated. Of course, if I had simply said that I'd loved the article and that I met the author smiling over a coffee, I'd probably get more upvotes, but for now, I think my rant has some merit. Then again, the article does point out a lot of sensible things, and that can be very helpful to some people, so perhaps I should crawl back under my rock.

xyzelement 3y ago
I appreciate nuance and not aiming for average and I get the examples you are talking about. But I think now you are the one who’s speaking in generalities vs the case at hand :) Do you think there’s a better way to connect to people than what is described in the article? I think I am fairly in-average in my interests and yet I am pretty sure if someone came and asked me about something vs started telling me shit about themselves, I’d be much more willing to engage the former. You are welcome to disagree but what’s your alternative advice?
- smokel 3y ago
  I'm not railing against the advice, I'm against the argumentation. This is not really clear from my previous comments -- I should've stated that context more clearly. The post suggests that scientific methods are at the basis here, but in essence it is just listing socially accepted norms that are obvious to anyone. Take for example the illustration on competence and likability. The research might be good, but the diagram itself shows no results, just a definition. And am I to believe that FBI hostage negotiation is applicable to a friendly conversation I'd like to pick up with my neighbour? It just all makes very little sense. So, yes, smile, listen, be friendly. But no, do not abuse "science" to support this.