Understanding how others relate to you | Hacker News Reader

Understanding how others relate to you

bmj.com

63 pointsOrderOfChaos21 comments

This model is pretty ham-fisted.

The "Blinds" are described as a cult, and a permanent status that endures any level of neglect or separation. In reality, it's extremely common for your unconditional love BFF's to drift away as the relationship atrophies. It's called your 30's and 40's.

MUST the third group of "Shapeshifters" ALL be Machiavellian? Careerists, seeking only to use you for your position and influence? Does this category even exist then, for the overwhelming majority of us who don't have much position or influence? This sounds like category for managers and LinkedIn junkies, not individual contributors and normal humans.

Where is the "Casual Acquaintance" category? The one that honestly describes 90% or more of our interpersonal relationships? The scale REALLY goes from blind devotion, to deep respect for you and your values, to backstabbing work colleagues, to outright "Haters"?

Nonsense.

> The "Blinds" are described as a cult, and a permanent status that endures any level of neglect or separation. In reality, it's extremely common for your unconditional love BFF's to drift away as the relationship atrophies. It's called your 30's and 40's.

I agree with this sentiment. All relationships are “rational”, in the sense that there has to be some commonality between friends. For instance, a commonality I had and still have with my friend from college is talking about business/finance with. Even though the relationship has frayed due to geographic separation, the commonality still remains, making reconnecting a lot easier. On the other hand, a work colleague I used to hang out with daily, we don’t have any commonality anymore, even though geographically he lives close, like 10 mins away by highway.

> MUST the third group of "Shapeshifters" ALL be Machiavellian? Careerists, seeking only to use you for your position and influence? Does this category even exist then, for the overwhelming majority of us who don't have much position or influence? This sounds like category for managers and LinkedIn junkies, not individual contributors and normal humans.

You don't have to be a manager to have sycophants. People can use other people for all sorts of things not just career status. E.g. money, emotional support, netflix subscription, whatever.

I agree the list is an oversimplification, but it’s largely accurate in my life.

For anyone who’s not in my close circle, I am a “shapeshifter”. I try to act benevolently and seek out win-win outcomes but I always keep my hand close to my chest. I will not lose.

I don’t keep any casual acquaintances unless it’s mutually beneficial. I trust people slowly and carefully, but without prejudice.

As someone with a light background in social psychology, I have to say that nothing presented here falls into line with anything I have ever studied or learned. I would love for the author to provide references or links to any studies or any proper research that corroborates the claims.

This. Only a gmail (not an institutional email) from a "consultant in diabetes and endocrinology" who seems to be moonlighting as ... a life coach?

I mean, he is basically saying that people either love you unconditionally, they love you but not unconditionally, they pretend to love you but are actually using you, or they actively hate you.

He kind of misses the category of people who dont care,but other than that, doesn't it cover 100% of the possibility space? What other possibilities are there? Like a priori i would expect the model to be true by virtue of the law of excluded middle

Interesting metaphor - I'd argue that Rationals, even with mutual respect, are more likely to become Shapeshifters than Blinds.

Also

> The pressures of life can mean that we rarely make time for [Blinds], but it can leave you uplifted.

The reason people become close to you and unconditionally love you are usually because you spent a lot of time with them. Even if the time spent attenuates a bit, it's not "rare" to continue seeing them, and if it were, the relationship would atrophy eventually and they would drop out of "Blind" status.

Anytime you have distinct categories, remember that the model is an over-simplification.

Almost all models are oversimplifications. That's the reason it's a model

All models are wrong, but some models can make it to the front page of HN.

Some models are useful, but this one isn't. I guess you can just label me as a 'Hater'

No, all models are simplifications. Oversimplification means it has been reduced past it's usefulness.

Simplifying something can still be useful. Not all models oversimplify.

One of the more entertaining things in my life, is watching others "figure me out."

I'm pretty "out of band" (read: "weird").

I am generally fairly friendly, and open.

Lots of folks perceive that as weakness.

It's actually kind of entertaining, when they find out they got it wrong. Boy, do they get pissed.

Not everyone loves me. I cry myself to sleep over that, every night.

And, to stay on topic, I have no interest in categorizing others. It generally doesn't work well. The whole "You can tell a man by his handshake" thing is hilarious.

> "You can tell a man by his handshake"

In what sense do you find this hilarious?

It seems like a strong signal to me. It's not meant to be applied as general categorization. It's meant as a symbol which can be used to find your people. That is, those who had the same background where they were taught something about a strong handshake. People who don't have a strong handshake, may not come from the same background.

OK. I’ll walk that back, a bit. It’s the idea that some people get, that they can determine the sum total of another person, from a momentary interaction.

Let’s just say that some of the best people I’ve ever known, have “dead fish” handshakes.

Mine is “middlin’,” not too strong, not too weak. Tells you exactly nothing about me, and that’s how I like it.

Most people are a continuum. I know right bastards that are very loyal and standup, and very nice people that are totally unreliable, and I never count on them.

Most relationships are “give and take.” We find that we can work intimately with people that we wouldn’t want to invite over for dinner.

interestingly, it seems handshakes aren't just about the strength of grip. People smell their hands after handshakes for chemosignaling: https://elifesciences.org/articles/05154

"We found that humans often sniff their own hands, and selectively increase this behavior after handshake"

So, a handshake to someone who believes that sort of thing is like being a republican or a democrat. They use it as one minor signal of values. It's a tribal thing. They aren't using it as a test of strength, but of background. You can be at a high level of competence with a weak handshake, but the handshake will show the person who values strong handshakes that you aren't from that same culture / background. It's the same sort of signal as wearing a MAGA hat.

I think this model is over-simplified and not useful. The main problem in my opinion is that it's one sided.

A good question to ask would be what is your label in how you relate to someone else - I think almost no-one would label themselves as a 'Shapeshifter' or 'Hater'. Even if you didn't like someone, you wouldn't say that you are a hater, but you are being rational in your dislike for them.

Another problem this model has is this is just a snapshot within the timeline. Nobody wouldn't be able to decide if someone was (not) a 'Blind' until he finally had disagree with you. All the category discussed in the article cannot be decided until it's too late and simply a hindsight. What could you make use of the model if it wasn't available in advance?

Friends for a reason.

Friends for a season.

Friends for a lifetime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com