> People hate small talk because it avoids [vulnerability]. The purpose of social conversation is to connect but talking about the weather or the latest sportz ball result reveals sh!t.
I’m a defender of small talk. It’s the MVP of connection; you are at least talking to another person, mutual acknowledgement. It’s where relationships begin. It’s where you and the other can safely feel out the space of shared values and what’s top of mind: sports? Work? Family?
Oversharing is perhaps defined as sharing too much too soon, when you should still be doing small talk.
Sometimes people say they hate small talk but complain of the difficulty of making friends. Start by learning how to have light conversations. Keep talking. Depth comes naturally with time.
Among the problems of small talk: (a) It's a crutch that just plain avoids the need for connection. (b) It lets you acknowledge someone - but so do more constructive acts such as simply noticing the person near you and being considerate to them, or even smiling. In particular so many people will have small talk with one person while not even noticing the others. (c) Small talk fills up time - aka wastes - to the detriment of other topics. (d) Do people really learn connection by starting with small talk? Perhaps a few.
After that, the question exists of what topics you can tackle - that are not small talk. That can be tough. But usually you do have something in common with the other, already. Recognizing what it is can be tricky. Certainly teaching the various ways you can interact with others would be nice to have in school.
I do not think smalltalk has much to do with vulnerability, personally. Smalltalk is boring and useless. It is a waste of time, IMO, just because people find silence awkward.
I think hating small talk and avoiding it is a perfectly fine selection filter. If someone takes a long time to warm up and talk about deeper stuff, that's totally valid, but it's probably a sign of there being a mismatch in either vulnerability, actual available depth of conversation, or general conversation patterns. This mismatch means that yes, I could put in a lot of effort to get this person comfortable, but then you're accommodating someone else's priorities over your own, and I don't really want to do that with strangers. I'll go make friends with someone that is going to better match me.
Conversations should be progressive over time, as this builds trust and support over a given period of time
Empathy plays a crucial role in strengthening human connections, which unfortunately I believe has been eroded strongly by social media and a rise in individualism. The combination of anonymity, and the modern day psychological wiring towards instant gratification, makes online cruelty largely rewarding unfortunately.
I loved the book "How to know a person - The art of seeing others deeply and being deeply seen, David Brooks, 2023". I found truly interesting ways to look at the problem. By a professional of getting people to connect. Including issues such as how we see ourselves or how we see the world is not how it is (which applies to the person in front of us). Also a great discussion of culture vs individual. And plenty of tips for everyday usage. A useful piece of work.
"It means mutual empathy — they get you and you get them. It's discovering similar values, experiences and perspectives. It's a feeling of trust and comfort where you both feel safe to say what is truly on your mind."
Ah, sounds all fine and dandy!
But what do you do when you discover you don't have similar values?
Maybe there's no answer in todays polarized world; personally aspire to this:
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. — Abraham LincolnGot to go beyond shared values/experiences/perspective.
The deeper commonality lies in the messy hardware we all share - the human mind.
If you take a Philosophy or Psychology class, it usually starts by showing how incoherent and conflict-ridden the mind is.
From Plato’s tripartite soul (reason vs. appetite vs. spirit), to Hume’s (reason is just a slave to our passions), to Freud’s (id vs ego vs superego), to Kahneman (System 1 vs. System 2) there’s a constant theme running - the mind is not unified.
It’s a battlefield of impulses, instincts, ideals, and rationalizations.
And because we all live inside this strange ridiculous machine, one that can easily go off balance, we’re all vulnerable in the same essential way.
We all know what it’s like to be overwhelmed, to act irrationally, to feel pulled in opposite directions. That’s the real basis for connection: shared fragility, not shared ideology.
That’s why systems(and relationships) that are grounded in patience, forgiveness, empathy, compassion etc survive the long term.
They don’t depend on sameness, they depend on the recognition that everyone is doing battle with themselves. When that realization dawns it get easier to speak to the other person showing you understand this fact. And then we get the possibility of connection even across radical differences.
> But what do you do when you discover you don't have similar values?
Look deeper? Explicitly held beliefs are just a sliver of the tip of the iceberg that constitutes our experience as humans. The US, in particular, seems particularly fond of declarations of identity, so it helps to understand that such things are about as fundamental as the health of your pancreas.
IMHO, polarizing reactions, whether in others or yourself, look like obvious fear responses, which often respond to empathy and understanding.
More than fear, certainty smells like the mind killer to me.
I’ve spent the better part of 20 years trying to get through to my Trump loving, racist, hateful father in law using compassion and shared understanding. At some point you need to accept that some people don’t respond to that, and usually it’s the people who lean towards the authoritative that are not receptive.
Your comment is very confusing. The article is about making a connection with someone, the measure of which is that you have achieved a shared understanding. It sounds as if you have managed that. And yet it seems that this is not enough for you and you are expecting to “get through” to him in some other sense, that he will be “receptive” to something more that goes beyond mutual understanding, that he will “respond to that” shared understanding with something that goes beyond personal connection. What is it you are looking for, that would make that connection complete? That he recants all of his views and changes them to be in line with your own? Or is there something else that you expect shared understanding to lead to, rather than being a goal in itself?
I want him to realize that he achieved what he did not because he’s somehow better than people whose skin is darker than his, but because he was very lucky in where and when he was born, who his parents were, etc. I want him to realize that pulling up the ladder behind him (he often says that minorities don’t deserve the same benefits of society that he got) does nothing but make life worse for other people.
They were pretty clearly responding to the previous comment more than to the article directly??
I believe that another quote attributed to Honest Abe, is ”The best way to destroy an enemy, is to make him your friend.”
In my own life, I regularly interact (and connect) with folks that are notoriously difficult to deal with.
This had significant advantages in my career. The folks in the office —regardless of their proclivities— were amateurs, compared to some of the people I hung with, in my free time.
> This had significant advantages in my career. The folks in the office —regardless of their proclivities— were amateurs, compared to some of the people I hung with, in my free time.
Could expand on this? What advantages in your career? Also, what do you mean by:
> were amateurs, compared to some of the people I hung with, in my free time.
Do you intentionally look to meet people with whom you disagree?
> Do you intentionally look to meet people with whom you disagree?
Sort of. I like to develop good relationships with people that have a hard time getting along with others. I consider it to be a bit of a "challenge," and I like to live a life, where I'm constantly challenging myself. Also, I participate in an organization that is focused on helping people recover from significant life trauma. It's sort of my job.
Part of it, is because I'm "on the spectrum," myself, and come from a childhood fraught with atomic wedgies. I have some empathy for outsiders. I don't come from a "superior position," I have very much been an outlier, for most of my life. I know what it feels like.
It's been my experience that people that are difficult to deal with, come from some kind of personal trauma. I have found that they are often quite open to getting along with folks that are willing to accept the idiosyncrasies that arise from their coping mechanisms.
So if I can accept, and even be close friends with, someone that has spent significant time in Ossining, for violent offenses, having an employee throw a minor tantrum because I said "no," is a cakewalk.
Maybe you don't need to connect with everyone? If someone has a few different opinions to me, that's fine, I'm sure there's plenty of other things we agree on. Maybe we can find common ground and connect over that. If someone has fundamentally incompatible values to mine about things that I consider important, then I probably consider them a bad person. Like, I don't know how else to define "bad person". Definitely not someone I want to connect with.
[flagged]
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Sorry if I came across as criticizing a weak version of the rule. But I have had trouble trying to think of what a strong version might look like: "In most cases, if you don't like someone, then it just means you don't know them well enough" ? The assumption here seems to be that if you get to know someone well, then you will come to like them most of the time? I get that people are complicated but I don't think coming to understand a person more fully will necessarily lead to liking them more - but I suppose this depends on what type of person you are - someone who generally doesn't like people, or someone who is very picky etc, likely will not ever come to like most people even if they gain full knowledge of them, which makes the rule even more subjective.
On the other hand, some may argue that not liking someone means that you ought to study them more, which makes sense in the general sense of "you ought to know your enemy", but this seems incongruent with the original context of the quote.
I suppose I did oversimplify the rule in order to make it easier to apply, which reduces it to absurdity. But trying to find a way to make the rule work is also making my head hurt.
In any case I hereby apologize if I have broken any rules.
No worries! If you had added a version of this current comment to the original one, i.e. if you had spelled out your underlying thinking more, it would have been fine. The issue from a moderation point of view is the reductionist/snarkyy/inflammatory style. It's not what we're going for, and it evokes worse from others.
In other words I think this is a case of the 'rebound' thing I posted about earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44687473.
p.s. Btw, I don't think the "I must get to know him better" line is intended as a rule (maybe the word 'must' is a bit misleading in there). It's more an expression of an attitude that one can choose to take or not. To quote that line is to say "this is how I want to be".
- [deleted]
I get this is sarcastic but getting to know people like that is literally how the field of criminal psychology was born and helped stop many people like Bundy.
Maybe if you understand how that happened you would have an idea how to make the world have fewer people like that?
One of the most important things, in my experience, when in an adversarial relationship, is to understand, and, quite often, to respect my opponent. I need to understand why they are doing what they do, so I can make plans to counter them. Often, I can find ways to defuse the conflict, by negotiating compromises.
A pithy way to put it, is if you want to understand rats, talk to an exterminator.
Using one of the most of extreme of examples to discredit an argument that is meant to bring unity, makes me not like you, and not wanting to know you better ;)_
which would make you not like him even more, and thus wanting to know him better :D
This is offtopic but can you please email hn@ycombinator.com? I want to ask you about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44523452.
I have no desire to get to know someone who is racist or homophobic. We can disagree on supply side economics or universal healthcare all day long. I don’t owe my energy to get to know assholes.
A black man befriended a KKK wizard and has convinced over 200 klansmen to give up their robes
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
I don't think this is an unreasonable stance. I guess we're going with downvote=disagree for this one.
It's great if you can understand and connect with someone who's fundamentally decent but uninformed/misinformed and so holds some questionable views. I don't know if those views really count as "values" in this sense, though. Values tend to be either innate, or deeply ingrained and mostly immutable. If someone feels it's okay to kick puppies, maybe I can convince them that kicking puppies is bad and they should stop, but they're still a person who is capable of being okay with kicking puppies and that's not someone I want to be friends with.
Values tend to be either innate, or deeply ingrained and mostly immutable
i strongly disagree with that. values are learned, and they can be unlearned. people can change, and someone who kicks puppies can not only be made aware of the pain they are inflicting, and also completely turn around and reject their previous behavior. there is no invisible line that if you'd cross it, you wouldn't be able to turn back from. believing that denies others the power to change themselves.
So go out and try to change the values of your typical rural evangelical Christian about gay rights or trans issues today. I’m not going to speak about other religions that I don’t know about personally.
When was the last time you hung around a group of conservative Christians? I am emphasizing a certain cohort of Christianity. I am well aware of the more liberal Christian churches that fight/fought for civil rights and treating all human beings decently.
How much time have you spent in the Bible Belt?
There are places in the south that held segregated proms as recently as 2014.
Once (the royal) you hurt my family or insult anyone I care about because of the color of their skin or about their sexuality, I don’t owe you forgiveness or an explanation for my right to exist overall or be in “your space”.
i am not saying you have any kind of obligation to do anything to change someones mind. nor am i saying that it would be easy. i am just suggesting not to dismiss that change is possible. if daryl davis can change members of the kkk, then we can change conservative christians too. it takes effort and time, but it's not impossible.
Yes and if I tell my kids to drop out of school it’s also possible for them to become a billionaire because I read about a few people who did so….
that's not a fair comparison. the risks of dropping out of school are quite different from the risks of talking to someone.
The risk of my walking up to a klmsn rally and trying to change their heart is quite the same…
well that's a dumb thing to do. you talk to people when you are in a friendly environment, on a shared activity, where you can make friends with them. you build a friendship first. you don't confront strangers on the street. again, do take a look at what daryl davis actually did. he most certainly did not walk into the middle of a kkk rally. and you don't have to follow his example by picking out the most difficult people to work on. just making friends with people who are not the same group as you is a good start.
Well it’s dumb to prostrate myself for people that hate me. Black people for decades since MLK have been told by the old guard to let folks beat them and they will eventually be nice to them.
Now unfortunately liberals of all stripes think the same metaphorically. The people they are trying to extend a hand to are about retribution and cheering a leader who does so.
It’s about as banal as the “thoughts and prayers” can change things on the right.
You noticed that none of the people giving this advice here are minorities, trans, etc reaching out to people?
You noticed that none of the people giving this advice here are minorities
well, that's trivially proven wrong by daryl davis himself. and there are others. of course most of them don't make the kind of publicity that it would take for us to find out about them. it is also easier to work in a group instead of as an individual. if you search you will find black communities doing outreach and seeking dialogue.
Yes and it’s trivially proven wrong by Bill Gates that if I dropped out of school I could have become a billionaire…
And you still haven’t answered the question…have you reached out to people who hate you for who you are and tried to make friends with them?
And how often have you sat around having drinks with a group of successful, upper middle class Black people (well statistically well in the 80th-90th percentile income wise) who think it’s their responsible to change hearts and minds? I can guarantee you we all live our lives and spend no time worrying about rural America and their petty grievances.
The same is true when I go home to south GA for family get togethers. They are irrelevant to us.
Just to be absolutely clear, I’m an advocate for universal health care, better educating opportunities etc that uplifts everyone and have plenty of conservative non-MAGA friends.
look, all i am saying is that if you want the world to change, you have to do something about it yourself. if you feel like you can't, then that's up to you. other people not caring and not doing anything is not an excuse. if everyone used that excuse then nothing would get done. and perhaps that is the reason why progress is so slow. to many people are just blaming others. if you want change you need to start with your own person. and again, i am not saying that you should talk to people that hate you directly all on your own. you are not the only one who wants change. that's a community project. so build a community. that's what i am doing where i am. and then as a community we can approach the haters.
the problem here is your negative attitude. it's self defeating. and your apparent lack of care for others. why? you think the grievances or rural america are petty? why? and how do you think you could get them to change that? if we want a better world then we need to address everyones grievances. either by actually solving them or empowering them to solve them for themselves or by getting them to change their minds about them. and again, i am not saying that you should do this by yourself. that's not something any individual can do on their own.
you also don't need to get directly involved with people who are not around you. but you could change your own attitude about it and you can encourage others to share that attitude. one by one, people will get up and start doing something. if you just sit there and complain then nothing will change.
the most important part though is to not give up. the first steps are the hardest. changing your own mind and developing the courage and desire to do something, against all odds. finding the first few friends that want to join you. but once you have a few friends, things do get easier. don't expect quick results. be steadfast. it may take months to even find one person willing to go with you. keep talking to people until you find them.
And you still refuse to answer the question - have you personally put yourself out there to talk to people that hate you because of who you are - the color if your skin? Your sexuality? Your religion?
Or do you think it’s the same thing about talking to people who believe differently on policy decisions and someone who fundamentally doesn’t believe that certain people have no right to exist “in their space” or don’t care or actively wants someone to suffer because who they are?
I can’t “address people’s grievances” that think I don’t belong to their group because of the color of my skin anymore than a gay person can “address grievances” of someone who thinks because of their sexuality that God is going to rain down hellfire and brimstone on the nation.
It’s about as bad as the conservatives “thoughts and prayers”. And honestly for you (because after repeatedly asking I assume) are a person who doesn’t have to deal with a systemic “ism” can tell a minority/non straight person or a non Christian that we should go out of our way to spend time with people that hate us is insulting.
I don’t “complain”. Were my still living parents generation who grew up in the Jim Crow south right to spend time and energy to fight for laws about equal access and treatment under the law? Of course. Should I champion policies that give everyone universal healthcare, fair treatment by the justice system, hiring practices, etc? - of course.
But why should I care about people’s attitude toward me not because of who I am but because of the color of my skin (and they probably see me as one of these “tech elites” too) or even 10 miles in the city of the suburbs I use to live in (look up Forsyth County GA being visited by Oprah Winfrey)? If they choose to remain ignorant and choose to suffer because they care more about politicians hurting others than helping them - so be it.
And what “attitude” should I change? That there are some “good Klansmen”? That there are some good people laughing about illegal immigrants getting eaten by alligators?
You can’t change these people’s minds. The best you can do is hope they don’t have a position of power and if they don’t, let them wallow in their own ignorance.
- [deleted]
There's little better than helping someone like that expand their understanding of the world and their place in it. In the end, influencing hearts and minds is one of the few things you can do that will have a lasting impact after you're gone.
we should all aspire to be a little bit like daryl davis. just a bit. i am not going out of my way to seek out people like that, like he did, but when i discover that one of my friends is leaning into that direction, then i look to daryl davis for inspiration.
Why do I have the feeling you are not a minority, have never been stopped or questioned for being some place you “didn’t belong” or had to tell your six foot 3 step son to make sure that he and his other Black friend (two of five Black guys in the entire school) didn’t walk to the Waffle House to meet their friends after the football game unless their White friend was going with them because they would get harassed by the police?
No I’m not saying “everyone is racist”. But it’s not my responsibility to spend my energy educating racist and to proffer myself as “one of the good ones”.
The Daryl Davis that was mentioned is a black man who befriended many KKK members and resulted in them giving up their robes
You didn’t answer the question - are you a minority?
Do you also think Hispanic people who are here legally should have a chat with a bunch of ICE agents to change their hearts and minds?
If you are White, would you go out of your way to reach out to someone who belongs to a group who actively hates White people? I’m not naming a specific group even though I’m sure they exists because I honestly have no idea what groups they are and I would no more spend energy trying to change their minds either. If anyone in my family said anything that was outright racist or homophobic I would check them also.
My dad (now 83) on the other hand did slightly change his opinion on sexuality when he had to admit that one of his nephews were gay. But even then on a macro level he isn’t going to be waving a Pride flag around and he still thinks being gay is a moral sin that is going to damn a person to hell.
It’s just like a White guy I was friends with for years on a personal level, I had no doubt that if I needed him or if he saw someone harassing me or my family he would take out one of his many guns and defend me.
But once Trump came on the scene and I saw some of his posts on FB, I realized that he treated me as “one of the good ones” and if I was some random guy that he met on the street he would’ve treated me differently. He went on a racist tirade on Facebook about his daughter dating a Black guy for instance.
I'm not the person you were replying to originally, I was providing context for who Daryl Davis is and what he has done
That doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same thing, anymore than save the whales or end world hunger. Only that people aren't immutable and irredeemable and it's not fair to dismiss the idea of connecting with them as inherently ridiculous
Yes and because $TechFounder can drop out of school and become a multi billionaire, you can too. It’s “Survivorshio Bias” at its finest.
"Have patience and try to understand people you disagree with, and they might be open to changing their mind" isn't an out-of-reach unicorn tech investment, it is a fundamental building block of effective human communication. Ask any good salesperson
There is a huge difference between “I don’t agree with your stance on supply side economics or universal healthcare” and “I would just as well see you hanging from a tree as sitting here next to me” or “because you decide to love someone of the same sex, you are going to bring an end to this great nation and I will do everything I can to make your life miserable”,
I am not trying to “understand” anyone who thinks someone doesn’t deserve to exist.
So don't. But why insist to everyone else that engaging with prejudice and changing people's minds is impossible?
Yet I bet you’re not going to try to do outreach to people you know want to see you or your family harmed just because of the color of your skin…
Why do you assume that, and what is it you would like to achieve by saying so? Do you think I champion this because I've never helped someone become less prejudiced?
I'm sorry for what you've had to go through. But do you think the world will just change for the better of its own accord (or that it will never change for the better)?
this discussion reminds me of the quote by george bernard shaw: "The reasonable person adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable person"
And how has that worked out? Right now today, people are more willing to hurt themselves as long as they “own the libs”, see immigrants get mistreated, make sure Israel is protected so Jesus has somewhere to come back to (no exaggeration and I have no opinion on what Israel is doing. I don’t know enough), and non straight non Christians are treated as second class citizens.
The problem that Democrats and liberals have and why they are constantly shocked with outcomes is that despite what Michelle Obama says, this is exactly what the a large minority of the country is and always has been. They don’t care about corruption, the politics of revenge (and they cheer it), democracy, etc. The proof is in who they voted for.
Do you see the irony of stereotyping a large and diverse group of people based on the actions of an extreme few?
I take away a very different lesson. Folks who are shocked at the outcomes aren't listening to what others are saying. In fact I think that it's precisely because they have been ignored, dismissed, and treated with condescension that things have come to this and this anger has festered. Folks left behind by a system that has sold them out and left them without hope for a better tomorrow. I feel Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016, because he was speaking to the same message and was also not part of that status quo system. As FDR said in 1938, "I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism...will grow in strength in our land."
Of course malign actors have taken advantage of this and lied to people and told them what they wanted to hear, and the naked sabotage of the bipartisan immigration reform bill is par for the course from the same crew that sabotaged Vietnam peace talks in '68 (and possibly the Iran hostages in '80). Nevertheless, too often any concerns about immigration are immediately dismissed as racist. (This theme holds for other topics but I don't want to dilute the point). The politically connected know this stuff, but the "garbage in, garbage out" rule applies to humans and media consumption too. I blame the liars more than those who were lied to.
PS, I found that Davis himself has addressed this topic:
> “Every racist that I know—and I know a lot of racists—every racist that I know voted for Donald Trump,” Davis said near the end of the interview. “However,” he added, “that does not, and I expressly repeat it, that does not mean that everybody who voted for Donald Trump is a racist. There are plenty of people, including good friends of mine, who are not racist, and who voted for Trump. A lot of people wanted a change from what they were accustomed to for the last decades … they wanted a change of the status quo, a changing of the guard. And they were willing to overlook his misogyny, his racist or bigoted comments. They just wanted that change. They were are not racist people. But every racist I know did vote for him.”
If (the royal) you turn a blind eye and making excuses to someone who is systemically putting policies in place and demonizing people of different races and sexuality, you are part of the problem. There is a huge difference between deporting people who are here illegally (something Obama did more than Trump) and demonizing them and saying they are eating pets.
No I don’t agree with the chucking and jiving Davis. Just like if you belong to a church that spews racist non sense or defend Liberty University that until very recently made interracial dating against the rules, (again the royal “you”) are not someone that I can be friends with.
Yes you did have two bad choices and I know people who didn’t vote for Trump as much as they voted against Kamala and the entire vomit inducing DEI, allyship indoctrination that I had to endure during my stint at BigTech.
And stop blaming the politicians. We have seen time and time again that when conservative outlets veered even slightly toward not agreeing with Trump, people abandoned them.
Even today 40% of the population agree what Trump is doing. This gets back to the naive belief that liberals have that you can change the hearts and minds of rural evangelical Christians who have been all about grievances since before my parents were born even if you have a “some good ones”, they are still supporting the system and not speaking out.
I don't consider it turning a blind eye, quite the opposite. I don't think that not interacting with "bad people" will make the problem go away. Just telling people they are wrong for thinking something doesn't generally change one's mind (https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/)
I'm not saying kumbaya, why can't we all get along, let bygones be bygones. I'm not naive, I am saying a very simple truth: folks will go where they are accepted and listened to. You may not agree with them and they may think stupid and bad things. Too bad! Those are the facts on the ground and we must deal with them. If we just plug our ears and shun them, guess who are the only people who will listen to and accept them (very basic human needs, after all)?
Again, this is not a value judgment, and no one is saying everyone should go proselytize in the lion's den. But given that people do exist with beliefs we don't like, what then, do we just skip to "civil war" to solve the problem?
I'm also not so naive to think that we can just empathize our way out of this. It's not a fair fight, so to speak, there is a ton of money flowing the opposite way, amplifying falsehoods and exaggerations. In fact I do think it's a losing battle. But when the opportunity presents itself in the right circumstances I cannot turn away
And so then, why the hell shouldn't we blame those who are cynically and stoking feeding this hate, knowingly trafficking in falsehoods? (As in your example of eating the pets)
The narrative of the college dropout turning billionaire is a myth, at least insofar as it ignores their already wealthy family background. Nothing about survivorship in there.
i didn't say that you should. please reread what i said: i would not go out of my way to find these people, but if one of my friends turned out to be one of them, then i would try to slowly change their mind. using daryl davis as inspiration means that if he can befriend complete strangers to change their mind, then i can make an effort with the friends that i already have. that's all i am suggesting here. and in particular this call goes out to people who are not a minority themselves.
By definition, as a Black guy, how would I have White friends who didn’t like Black people? I mentioned I go down to the bar downstairs from where I live where I’m friends with the bartender to hang out with him and whoever comes by - all tourists who I will probably never see again (near Disney world). I’ve met and spoken to people all over the world and even had a few shallow conversations with people who only spoke Spanish using my very limited (B1) level Spanish speaking skills.
What I’m not going to do is go to a rural evangelical church in Alabama to let them get to know me.
I hate the narrative that I’m suppose to be “the better person”. I don’t owe anyone my energy. I don’t owe people “forgiveness” who want to bring harm to me or my family. I have no need to show people that I’m “the model negro”.
I also wouldn’t have “friends” of any color who spew racists or homophobic BS. Again I have plenty of friends who are traditional Reagan/Bush/Romney pre-2016 conservatives. We disagree on certain things. But we agree on common human decency.
I also find the “allyship” crap that I see in leftist circles vomit worthy.
On another post here on HN, someone posted on an “Ask HN” how could they find a job as someone with cerebral palsy. I mentioned that I had “CP” that mostly affected my left hand and went on about the post.
Then I had I guess people who called themselves “disability allies” chastise me for using the abbreviation “CP” because it was also an abbreviation for child porn.
I had to point out that every single disability organization like Easter Seal (the place I went growing up) abbreviated it CP.
It’s no different than I assume White people telling me that I should befriend a Klansmen to change their mind. Until you have walked in my skin, you have no right to tell me how I should spend my time changing the minds of a bunch of racists pricks.
[dead]
This is honestly a naive take and probably comes from someone who is not a minority (I am) or someone who didn’t grow up in the south.
It reminds me of the vomit inducing DEI training I was forced to endure and the “allyship” BS when I did my stint at BigTech between 2020-2023.
There are deeply religious people who sincerely think from decades of growing up being indoctrinated in the church who believe that miscegenation is a sin and that by allowing “the gays” to get married that God will destroy the country.
I also lived in what was a famous “sundown town” until recently for eight years (yes this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0). I didn’t live there myself until 2016. Where we lived is approximately a 10 minute drive from where that outdoor scene was shot. We had a house built in the burbs there. Even though I made by myself twice the household income on what has become the most affluent burb of Atlanta, my 6 foot 3 stepson who had grown up in the burbs of Atlanta all of his life still got questioned by a Karen when he was in the neighborhood pool because she didn’t think he belong there. Was I suppose to approach her and we sit down and have a coffee while introduce her to Black culture? It’s not my duty to be an ambassador to anyone.
Right now, 40% of the country is cheering Trump’s treatment of LGBT and especially trans and immigrants.
And even if someone who is a racist sees me - a successful “articulate”, Black person who happens to know how to code switch on demand, in their mind they probably see ne as “not like other Black people).
Don’t get me wrong, I always “assume positive intent” and I am not at all uncomfortable in spaces where most people think I should be uncomfortable.
Out of curiosity, how do you think society should deal with such people?
At 51, that’s not my responsibility. We have seen that much of rural America have no desire to get out of their Fox News induced bubble.
It’s even worse than I thought it was before 2020. When Fox News called the election fairly in 2020 and any other time it veers slightly off the Trump bandwagon, even it is punished by the viewers.
It’s just like with religious people (subject change I’m not trying to imply all religious people are racist). I once read about a deeply religious lady who had 7 kids and 6 of them died during a tsunami and she said she was so grateful to God and how good he was for saving one.
You can’t change people’s deeply held beliefs. Sure you might be able to get people to see different about right vs left policy decisions or at least respect your viewpoint. But people’s value systems are about identity and community especially in the rural Bible Belt where their shared culture and since of belonging is based on the church and now the church has based its culture on populism.
I'm sure the 51 year olds in the population you're referring to don't consider themselves absolved of their responsibility (as they see it)
Maybe the fact that so many people are so willing to entirely wipe their hands of things and write off half the country as racist idiots is contributing more to the problem than churches.
You might find this organization will resonate with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braver_Angels
> Braver Angels ... is a ... nonprofit dedicated to political depolarization. The organization runs workshops, debates, and other events where "red" (conservative) and "blue" (liberal) participants attempt to better understand one another's positions and discover their shared values.
> The organization states that it is the "largest, grassroots, bipartisan organization in America dedicated to reviving the communal spirit of American democracy." As noted by Cavendish, they say that their "method involves bringing politically diverse people together in small groups to listen empathetically to each others' perspectives."
How is it “my responsibility”? My “responsibility” starts and ends with my family. I will even go a step further and say it’s my responsibility to advocate for policies that lift people up and provide a social safety net. If I decide to volunteer my time to help others that’s my choice.
It’s definitely not my responsibility to put myself out there to change the hearts and minds of racists pricks. While it is my responsibility to assume the best in individuals and to treat people like people.
And I’m sure your insight about how much energy Black people spend on changing hearts and minds comes from your personal experience sitting around the dinner table with your family or when you’re having drinks with your friends?
It's not naive to choose to see the best parts of people and hope that they can change to be the best version of themselves. Not everyone will change, but some will. When we let our damage accumulate to the point that we stop believing that we do a disservice to ourselves most of all. It doesn't mean we should march into a pit of bears wearing a pineapple glaze, it means that we hope for the best and don't let it break our spirit if we're wrong.
My spirit isn’t “broken” those people - the ones who actively support the demonization of “other” are irrelevant to me unless they are in a position to bring me harm - mostly law enforcement these days.
I see people individually how they treat people and who they surround themselves with. Don’t tell me there are “good people” who support Liberty University or who don’t speak out in churches when the leadership supports politicians and policies that demonize others.
And even then, I’m fine with ministers who say they refuse to marry gay people or allow the ceremonies in their churches. That’s there right to have a backwards belief.
I wonder where the line is between being willing to be vulnerable and oversharing.
I don't think you can avoid risks and be vulnerable at the same time. It's a bit of a catch-22, I'll admit; oversharing can push people away, but the only way I know to figure it out is to fall, get back up, rinse, and repeat.
I would suggest that, like many things, that line is dependent on all of the details of the situation. Because all of those subtle details (e.g. the mood, receptiveness, familiarity, interest, etc. of the other person and yourself) matter, you need to be able to take those in and respond accordingly. So you could say that a prerequisite for connection is something like "presence", the ability to give your full attention to the interaction itself. Or you could say that this is actually the essence of connection, and the conversation is an expression of that togetherness of presence.
Just keep the conversation appropriate for time, place, and how well you know the person. That avoids oversharing.
For example, I overheard a conversation between two coworkers. One asked about a health issue and the other responded with this long drawn out story about an extremely gruesome injury with lots of details leaving everyone extremely uncomfortable. The other coworker complained about to me afterwards, because I overheard it.
He could have said "oh, I'm doing much better! Had a bad injury about six months ago that set me back some, but I'm healed up from that now, thankfully!"
Maybe there's a time and place to share the gruesome details, depending on who your friends are, but it's certainly not with a work acquaintance.
Depends on context. Learn to read the other person or group, there are cues. Also there is mutuality, back and forth.
I also question the validity of the cultural concept of "oversharing" being as always bad. Maybe it's bad by definition, but then what is "oversharing?" If you share am I allowed to give you advice?
my definition of oversharing is when the recipient signals that they are not interested. in other words it depends on the other. there is no general line, and each person is different. you never know. it also depends on the character of the recipient. you may tell me things that are way to personal that i am not ready to talk about, but i'll most likely ignore that unless you become obnoxious about it, because i find an offensive reaction to oversharing just as bad and i don't want to lose your friendship over your "mistake".
i'd also say that if someone you consider a friend turns away because of your oversharing, then they probably weren't a good friend to begin with. the only danger is if you tell someone something personal that they end up sharing with others, but that's a breach of trust by that person, not bad oversharing.
It’s all relative. You can share something slightly personal or controversial and see where it lands in the other person’s comfort zone. Then it’s up to you to decide what to do with that info.
It moves over time as you get closer to someone, in concert with your mutual trust.
You cannot over share Most people don't give a shit about you. And the ones who gives a shit does have their own ideas about you anyway. So you would be surprised how much influence you can do to change those ideas. Even if you change their ideas it's still an idea in your head as far as your are concerned.
- [deleted]
"People" don't hate small talk. SOME people hate small talk. But small talk is a gateway to connection. It is not to be avoided, but to be embraced-- if connection is what you want.
And the people the writer speaks of don't "hate" small talk, mostly. They are uncomfortable with it. This is not the same as hate.
I suspect some of the people who are uncomfortable with small talk are that way because they don't want to delay talking about big things. Others are uncomfortable because they don't WANT it to lead to big things. Others think it IS a big thing and are afraid to do it wrong. And finally others falsely believe that small talk means telling lies.
I like to talk about big things, but I don't mind starting with little things.
If you want to explore connecting with people I can highly recommend social dancing.
>People hate small talk because it avoids this
I don't believe that. You can connect with someone before you've exchanged names, and you can fail to connect with someone you've shared your life's story with. This is the same mistake autists at my dance school make (including myself). They believe connection demands a rational exchange of valuable information. In dance that would be the technical complexity of whatever you're leading and the grace and mastery you lead it with. In language it would be sharing hopes and fears.
Small talk robs you of all that. It's a true measure of someone's ability to connect.
I can highly recommend social dancing
as an introvert who is uncomfortable to expose themselves to much i prefer more formal dancing, that is, where the rules of how to move are predefined and you are all learning those exact moves without having to be creative in any form. (once you learned a couple of traditional dance moves you can take them to somewhere where more creativity is asked for)
Great insights. In US people do ask one another "how are you?", perhaps in a shallow way - but I think it's still an opener that can lead to more meaningful conversation. In Poland for instance, where I'm from, people don't ask "how are you?" one another - which slightly limits that opportunity. At the same time Europe as a whole has so much better work life balance which allows for many more outside work friends and family connections and spending time together.
I’m from the US. “How are you,” is indeed a very shallow question that expects a very shallow and prescriptive response. I’ve seen where people answer it honestly, and when they walk away the person asking says something to the effect of, “god, I didn’t need his whole life story.” Experiences like this make me more hesitant to answer honestly.
The better you know someone, the more this rule starts to bend, but that doesn’t help with establishing new connections.
Even with people who are close, there is some expectation to keep things pleasant and not unload bad news on them, or seem like you’re bragging about good stuff, when asked how you are. This is why you’ll often see movies where someone asks, “how are you,” and then after the generic answer they follow it up with, “how are you really?”
In other situations, especially with good stuff, people feel like they need to be invited to talk about something exciting in their life. If they have something fun planned for the weekend or did something fun last weekend, they’ll ask someone else what they did, hoping to get that same question back, so they can have an excuse to talk about what they did. No one ever really told me this and it took me longer than I’d like to admit to figure it out.
I've lived my whole life in the southeastern US, and the comments online about this always make me feel like an alien. Everyone here always seems to imply that it's meaningless because "You have to say 'good', and if you don't say that people get upset," but I've just never once had that experience.
I almost never say 'good' in response to that question, even to a coworker I don't know well. In my friend groups, usually people will be straightforward about how they're doing as well. Maybe people don't know how to say 'bad' without following up with a story? It's easy once you start doing it. "Not great, but it's fine" or "I'm just keeping along / taking it day by day" is a fairly common response to get from me, especially lately, and it's always honest. Sometimes I will just say "TBH this week completely sucks for me" before continuing with what the conversation was about originally. If things are going well I will be effusive in my (still short) response ("I'm doing awesome actually"). And I do care about how the other person is doing when they respond. I've even gone so far as to ask, after finding out about bad news later in the conversation, "Damn, why'd you say you were doing well?".
I find it to be a deeply useful way to start a conversation. If you ask how I'm doing and you don't know me well, and I say something to imply I'm not having a good day, it completely changes the way the conversation should be conducted. Same goes for the other person's response. You always start every conversation on the same page ('how impatient / stressed is the other person right now?' is one of the most important pieces of context you can have). Over time, I've even found that it has the benefit of making me reflect on a regular basis on how I feel in the moment vs how I'm actually doing on a longer-term scale.
- [deleted]
> I’ve seen where people answer it honestly, and when they walk away the person asking says something to the effect of, “god, I didn’t need his whole life story.”
I've definitely experienced the same. However ive realized that invariably, the person answering honestly is wayyy happier in general than the person being critical. Learning to have the freedom to express yourself, invite connection, and let failed invitations go, is a superpower for a happy life.
- [deleted]
I tend to use "how are you today on a scale of 10?" as an ice breaker.
This then allows you to open the question, as well gives choice to the person.
"Six is good, why a six?", "anything wrong, why a four? Et cetera
When someone says "How are you", I sometimes say "Crummy, but thanks for asking." I'm not oversharing, but I'm also not giving them a shallow, dishonest reply. I'm leaving the door open for a deeper conversation, but I'm not forcing it. Then it's up to them whether we just move on, or whether a real conversation happens.
“I didn’t die in my sleep last night so I’ve got that going for me” dark dry and true.
I wouldn't attach grand meanings to that. Most cultures in Europe do have a socially polite "how are you"/"ça va"/"tudo bem"/whatever to which you're expected to reply some variation of "I'm fine thank you" unless you are good friends and the question is meant sincerely.
I always thought there are better ways to open a conversation. The first thing you have in common with the other person is that you are at the same place during the same time as them. Depending on the context this can already provide you with much, much better ways of starting a conversation than just using a "how are you?" to which nobody expects an honest answer. But German is my first language and this culturual circle isn't exactly known for valuing meaningless smalltalk so take this with a grain of salt.
I have found that the key to successfully starting a conversation is (1) to be emphatically observant and wonder which questions are moving the other person in a given moment and (2) be open to take it any direction including shutting up without feeling any pressure.
- [deleted]
> I always thought there are better ways to open a conversation.
Just like everyone else. "How are you?" isn't a conversation opener, it's an attention grabber; like "hey", "ahoy", "excuse me", or "hello". A device used to give the other party a moment to realize your presence and shift their focus towards you. If you try to go straight into conversation when the other person is off in their own world, nine times out of ten you're going to simply get back "Wait, what? Did you say something?"
I worked in Germany for a while, and it was always hilarious when an American would ask a local "how are you?" then proceed to be bombarded about how they're having a headache or how their baby puked all over them yesterday. It's a question that's used almost as a "hello" in the US.
> In US people do ask one another "how are you?", perhaps in a shallow way
My understanding is that it is not even a question, the question mark at the end is just decoration. Even the shallow answer is not necessary, responding with something like, "Hi, good to see you" would be perfectly valid.
'how are you' is not a genuine question, it's an opening salvo in an interaction ritual. You aren't supposed to actually answer it.
I hate it, it's absolutely useless and just occupies the first few seconds of an interaction for no reason.
true, people are being polite mostly though.
That is honestly a shallow greeting that leads to a shallow response. I hang out at the bar downstairs from where I live to talk to the bartender who is a friend (we have hung out before), and whoever else comes by - mostly tourists. My go to question is “what keeps you busy”? It’s open ended and I can talk about almost anything enough to ask questions and keep them talking.
- [deleted]
A good way to avoid the "how are you?" small talk trap, is to ask "how are you sleeping?"
The polite reply would be: That's none of your business.
Good article! Short and straigt to the point and it gave me an insigt. Check out his other writings in his blog
What i want to know more about is "clicking" with people. I traversed social isolation and anxiety in my youth to get pretty decent at small talk and for a while that was all there was it seemed. Then as the environments changed i found i was able to more fully connect and establish friendships with people.
But whats always stood out to me is the people I ended up persisting with, how quickly that small talk phase passed, sometimes it seems like within the first encounter. My most recent developing friendship i distinctly remember it was within the first few words, both my wife and I just knew oh this person fits. I always expect and still believe getting to know someone better can lead to shared understandings, better conversations, friendships. But at the same time, my anectdotal experience has been the people that worked out and persisted, it was obvious within five minutes or less (ie that initial gut feeling never changed).
I guess the social cues or mannerisms or something like that which is perhaps hard to consciously describe but to an expert would be likely obvious, that perhaps reveals far more about you than your words can impart. Im sure its not that complicated but also think if you are forcing the small talk and really struggling to connect, dont be afraid to branch out and look for those clicks.
> A good place to start was to figure out what makes me happy. So, I wrote down the best experiences of my life so far. I came up with 20. 19 of them were experiences where I connected with people.
You are assuming you know what best experience you can experience by looking at the past. But this is not necessarily correct. Don't assume you know the answer. Try new things. Some of the best experiences come from within. Boy you would be surprised:)
To connect two USB-C cables together, you'll need a USB-C coupler, also known as an adapter or extender. This allows you to plug one USB-C cable into each end of the coupler, effectively joining them to create a longer cable.