3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoI'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.