Hacker News Reader

Comment by unsupp0rted | Hacker News Reader

I've been on several dates like this. The other person talks about themselves for 30 ~ 90 minutes, exclusively, depending on how charitable I'm feeling that day.

They don't ask me any questions about me at all. Like, not even one.

I ask myself if it's because they're like that on any date with any person, or because they realized at first sight they weren't interested in me, so it doesn't matter to them if they learn anything at all about me during the date, since they don't expect to see me again either way.

Sometimes I've tested this by doing a second date. They show up and talk about themselves non-stop.

But then I ask myself the same question as before.

Is it possible many otherwise neurotypical people can get into their 30s and 40s without ever having learned how to carry on a two-way conversation?

View on HN

There is a friend in my life who I meet with regularly in a small group setting that falls into this category - never seeming to reciprocate.

When I imagine asking him, "What don't you ask questions about my life?" I assume I'd get a response something like, "You can tell me anything," or "I'm open to hearing what you want to talk about," or "You're free to talk about anything."

If I had to devise a quick mental model, it might seem like the difference between talking at someone vs talking with someone? I might have to think about that a bit more. Do you have any insight here?

> When I imagine asking him, "What don't you ask questions about my life?" I assume I'd get a response something like, "You can tell me anything," or "I'm open to hearing what you want to talk about," or "You're free to talk about anything."

I think this is the insight!

> If I had to devise a quick mental model, it might seem like the difference between talking at someone vs talking with someone?

(And I think this is semantics.)

Excuse me if I read that wrong, but I'd be curious why you think label "talking at" vs "talking with" is semantics.

I see a significant difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances when I'm "talking at" vs "talking with". There's also a significant difference in response I seem to receive from people when I employ one distribution of behaviors vs the other. But, maybe you see it differently?

I agree. “Talking at” might as well involve a cardboard cutout of my face and a tape recorder that plays back “hmm” and “wow” utterances at random intervals.

My being there in person doesn’t materially affect what the other person experiences from me anyway.

I was trying to compliment you! When you talk about your friend, about what you might ask him, and what he might answer, I think you have insight there. I think that's valuable.

And I should have stopped there. But I went on to try to make a point about the quick mental model you proposed about "talking at" vs "talking with". Which I think leads to arguing about semantics (with others or yourself).

What you're saying about the difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances sounds reasonable to me (if a bit abstract). I just think the specific insight into your friend's behavior is a lot more valuable.

D'oh! thank you. Leave it to the medium of text to throw a wrench into things!

Consider this:

What if your date finds you attractive already? Could be because of real or perceived popularity or high "status" in you? (I'm guessing you're a man?) And maybe you're ok handsome?

Then, what does it matter what you do during the days?

If you're high status enough already -- what do the reasons for that matter?

And so she'd rather talk about herself and her interests.

When you mentioned you tried a second date, I thought, I bet she'll show up.

(I suppose there are men who date cute women and they (the men) talk only about themselves and cars and soccer. What does it matter what she does during the days? When she's good looking already)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com