Comment by colmvp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by colmvp | Hacker News Reader

> One: If you want people to really know you, weekly meetings don’t cut it. You need deep dives with them in high-intensity situations.

I'm sure most people experienced situations in a company where things were rocky and others in the company were experiencing the same situation. I haven't spoken to certain co-workers in years, yet I know for a fact that if I e-mailed them today saying I'm coming into town, they'd be excited to meet for dinner.

> Two: Looking under your own hood at what makes you tick and writing it down can provide a useful reference.

That's also where mindfulness can be very helpful in that you build up the sensitivity to see what's going on within yourself.

> Three: Put yourself in situations where you can’t ignore feedback from multiple sources.

If only I had design critiques / code review for my past life decisions.

I think for much stronger beliefs (e.g. "I'm intelligent", "I'm attractive"...) it takes repeated blows over a course of time to update the error. It wasn't until I got my ass kicked from learning STEM subjects over a course of a year and got rejected A TON in online dating until my priors got updated to a more accurate calibration.

One of the issues with practical psychology vs STEM is that STEM has a formal language which allows cumulative intergenerational learning.

You can literally look at the words and math used by people who have been dead a long time, follow their arguments, and learn from their insights in a semi-standardised course of study.

Psychology has stories and studies, but there's no formal process of learning from the mistakes of previous humans.

So people tend to make similar mistakes in every generation - politically, socially, and personally.

There are theories in psychology and there are experiments. You could read these papers and perform the experiments can come to the same conclusions (if they were reasonable to begin with and not biased).

Politics and social structures evolve in strategy but are essentially similar (you can read old newspaper articles and while the language is no longer appropriate, you see the same arguments rehashed today with different window dressing). These are forms of economic control by the wealthy and essentially appeal to racism and classism. We had slavery, then redlining, and then a war on drugs. And now we have failed cities. This structure has been maintained throughout society since America was founded and is passed along generation lines. You do see a dampening effect between generations unless some conflict reinforces it (largely economic/resource competition). But a conflict can be unifying as well. For example WWII had a unifying effect since a GI was a GI. But if we had diverse neighborhoods, schools and work opportunities we would rapidly see a more humane world.

Tbh i think online dating is sort of a scam. If i meet girls irl theyll be staring at me and following me around while similar girls won't be that into me online (some will but fewer). I just make friends irl now to meet people.

That has been my observation as well especially when it comes to interracial experiences. Specifically, I've gone on dates with women of a different ethnicity when I've met them first from platonic situations (meetups, school, work). But when it comes to online dating, I've never received mutual interest from a woman of a different ethnicity. Zero.

I don't think it's a scam. It's more that any averagely attractively woman gets a huge amount of attention online, so woman are permanently in filter mode.

Women get between ten and a hundred times more messages and contact requests than men do. The only practical way to deal with that is to ignore most of it, and that inevitably leads to false negatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com