2 ms·

I suppose its a question of balance, but to me, the article is saying that the act of "getting to know" someone, necessarily involves sharing things that are a

• cauch 2y ago
  > the act of "getting to know" someone, necessarily involves sharing things that are a bit more "real" than the typical glossy surface conversation people tend to have. I think that's the point: you want to create an environment where the interlocutor, when they want it, can, if they choose to, do it. > doing one's best to make sure such openness is reciprocated, and that the other person's heart is in the right place. How is that not exactly what is done? Are you saying that the article explains that if the other person does not answer, you have to put a gun on their head and scream until they comply? What kind of socially immature persons are taking so much offense when someone just asks you a slightly personal question in a social meeting where the context is to bond with interlocutors? Just answer politely in a way that show you don't want to go there, and the other person will act accordingly. But pretending that the author of the article is wrong just because they did not jump through hoops to cater your personal snowflakeness seems so closed-minded.