How to get to know someone (2018) | Hacker News Reader

How to get to know someone (2018)

noorsiddiqui.com

45 pointseamag56 comments

If I wasn't as conflict-averse as I am, if someone I just met were to start asking me these questions my first reaction would be,

why should I tell you any of this? What makes you think you're worthy of my most personal thoughts? How do I know you're someone I can be vulnerable with? I don't share most of these thoughts with my closest friends and family in normal circumstances, why should I trust a complete stranger with it?

I don't disagree with that, but your comment made me realize something.

What is the real risk of answering these questions?

I perfectly understand the discomfort, and I have it myself, but is this discomfort justified by anything concrete?

I mean, sure, they may be personal thoughts, but what nefarious use can be done with them? I think that people in general greatly overestimate how much their personal thoughts matter in the grand scheme of things of other people's life. You would tell me that you had a dog when you were young and it was your best friend. I will answer that that's a nice story, but it will not affect my life much.

For example, to the question "what makes you think you're worthy of my most personal thoughts?", a similarly conflict-charged answered is "what makes you think your most personal thoughts are worth anything?". In the process, the personal thoughts are not really the point, the point is that the interlocutor is trying to bond, which is a win-win situation, where you gain as much as they gain. And if you are not interested to bond with this person, no problem, just say so. But sometimes, two persons may both want to try to bond, and this article is probably for these situations. It's a bit like if there was an article "how to make sure your guests are happy when they are visiting you for a meal" and answering "if someone asks me if I have food allergies, I will just answer 'mind your own business', I don't want to eat with them anyway".

What is the risk of just having the conversation naked? We just want to know each other, seeing each other naked would just speed things up, wouldn't it?

Answering private questions means this stranger now has knowledge I would consider "privileged" about myself, which they can use as they see fit. Mean comments? Oversharing with friends? Gossipping?

There's a reason we keep some conversations only between trusted parties, and getting to know which parties we trust takes time. You can't speed that up by skipping steps.

Traditionally, in Finland you have to go into the sauna before you sign a deal with someone.

In Japan you have to get really drunk with a business partner before they trust you.

Completely overblown stereotypes, of course, but the grain of truth in both stories are accelerating trust.

Having conversations naked is actually a great way to level the playing field: nobody hides anything, everyone is just as vulnerable.

One of the great principles of Naturism.

> What is the risk of just having the conversation naked?

I would say there is intrinsically no much risk. Naturists cross paths with perfect strangers while totally naked, and it is not a big deal for them. Some population lives (or lived in the past) naked, again, without real risk.

But, yes, I would not do that myself. But I would not say that I would not do it because it is "risky" or that they are "not worthy of seeing my body", but rather because it makes me uncomfortable. And if my interlocutor is into meeting people naked, I will just say that it's not my thing rather than being antagonistic. It seems to me to be a cultural thing, and therefore the way I do things is not intrinsically better than the way they do things, so I have no ground to pretend they do a "bad" thing or being aggressive towards them.

Also, if you care about protecting yourself from hurtful comment, do you wear a mask on your face when you meet people. Because physical appearances provide way more means to be hurtful than knowing that you enjoyed football at recess in 3rd grade. (and, sure, wearing a mask is not convenient, but my point is that we greatly under estimate the risk of information that we are used to share and greatly over estimate the risk of information that we are not used to share)

> Answering private questions means this stranger now has knowledge I would consider "privileged" about myself, which they can use as they see fit. Mean comments? Oversharing with friends? Gossipping?

While I can understand it for _some_ questions and _some_ circumstances, a lot of the questions in the examples in the article are very not exposing you to that risk. And if you can think of particular cases where they are, similar cases exist for plenty of other questions that you probably don't consider as personal.

If you are saying that "how did your parents meet" is risky because it may occasionally be linked to something touchy, so is "what did you do yesterday" ("I went to a funeral of a close friend"), "what do you do for a living" ("I've lost my job and I'm struggling"), "what is your favorite movie" ("It's the one that my parents watched when they met"), ...

You will notice that for all these normal questions, you can avoid the touchy subject in the answer. But that's identical if some of the questions in the article are touching touchy things.

It seems to me that these questions are no more personal than the "usual" ones, and it is just that: 1) we are used to the "usual" ones. In a parallel universe, someone would say "you ask me what is my favorite movie, that's strange and personal, can you not ask me what is my favorite gift I've been given, like in a normal first conversation", 2) we know that some personal information should be shared with care, but we end up considering all information we consider personal are dangerous to share. Except they are not.

You don't know the person you're speaking with very well. How can you know how they might choose to use such personal, intimate information?

Some people will absolutely use such personal stuff as ammunition, perhaps at some point in the future when they're angry with you, or feeling vengeful, or stressed. And yes, I've had it happen to me - and to an extent that would boggle people's minds. And it came from a self professed "kind" person, who "only wished good things". Until they got riled up that is, and then anything and everything was verbal fair game.

I think that my point is that the questions in the article don't provide much more ammunition than the "usual" questions, or even other usual things that we usually share.

If they want to hurt you, they can easily laugh at some particularity of your face and that would be very hurtful. Or laugh at you because your favorite movie is Star Wars or because you work in retail. I'm not sure how your favorite gift you've ever received is more personal and intimate than your favorite movie.

Not only the examples of questions in the article are usually as "risky" as "what's your favorite movie", but also you can easily answer these questions in ways that don't provide much ammunition.

"they can easily laugh at some particularity of your face and that would be very hurtful. "

Forgive me, I'm not saying such insults aren't hurtful, but if that's the worst they have to throw at you, then believe it or not, you're getting off relatively lightly.

How about undermining your memories of your not-long-dead parents, based on things you've told them about your childhood? Doing their level best (and they are VERY persuasive, and persistent) to convince you that you were never loved by your mother, extrapolating from stories you have told them, to construct an alternative history that paints your parents (and particularly your mother) as an uncaring, sexually profligate monster.

I have many other examples - but it's Friday evening, and I don't want to put either of us in a low mood. :-) So I'll just wish that no-one who reads this ever runs into someone like that, and wish you the very best of luck!

Cheers

The majority of the examples have nothing to do with sharing memory of your not-long-dead parents or things like that. And again, usual questions like "what have you done last month" are also as "dangerous", because you may have been to a family funeral.

That's my point: these examples of questions are not different from "usual" questions and don't force anyone to over-share or get personal. It's just you who see an unusual questions and interpolate that you should answer as if you were in therapy with deep and personal answers.

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 bit more "real" than the typical glossy surface conversation people tend to have. I think it's just worth taking a bit of time with these things, doing one's best to make sure such openness is reciprocated, and that the other person's heart is in the right place.

> 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.

> “It's just you who see an unusual questions and interpolate that you should answer as if you were in therapy with deep and personal answers.”

The article gives the number one reason to ask these kinds of questions as “recall an emotionally charged memory (positive or negative)” and the number one thing to avoid “providing canned responses to questions”; that says to me that you are supposed to answer with deep and personal answers.

If you respond with shallow impersonals, how is that “getting to know someone”?

I would say that recalling a memory does not imply sharing something deep and personal. It's like the difference between these two questions: "what is the answer of 2x+4=12" and "what's your favorite movie". I hope we both agree the first one is bad to get to know someone. It does not mean that you need to get all emotional and cry when answering the second, but you will be more engaged and more interested by the second one. "recalling emotionally charged memory" just mean that you are giving the opportunity for a less boring and a more interesting conversation.

And not canned responses just means that with the usual questions, people answer already prepared answers (because these questions are so well-known that everyone already know what they will answer) while these new questions require some thoughts and more originality because you cannot easily just come up with the same banalities you've heard everywhere before.

Also, I'm not saying the answers will be shallow impersonals, I'm saying that "usual" questions are as dangerous. You can, if you want, answer shallow impersonals to these new questions, the same way you can with the usual questions. You can, if you want, answer deep personals with these new questions, the same way you can with the usual questions. The difference is that 1) the usual questions are too well-known to generate original answers, 2) creating an environment that give the opportunity to discuss of things that will help bonding.

Indeed. I could be wrong, but I interpreted the article in the same way.

Here's how I'd phrase it to make it sound less creepy:

> How did your parents meet?

(Share something about myself and then ask) Where are your parents from?

> What was your favorite thing to do at recess in 3rd grade?

What was your childhood like?

> What’s a decision you’re trying to make right now? Do you want to walk me through your thinking?

So, any big plans for the future?

> What thing did you buy for under $50 that brought you the most joy/convenience/utility?

Do you like shopping? It's such a chore for me.

> What do you believe most strongly that you can’t prove?

Do you follow any religion or spiritual practice?

> What do people misunderstand about you when they first meet you? What do your best friends know about you that your acquaintances don’t?

I think sometimes people kinda misunderstand us without knowing us well. What do you think?

Considering these all as creepy is beside the fact that not all of these questions benefit from being replaced. The nature of a lot of these questions is to use specificity to learn and connect about highly specific things in life, which a lot connection is based around. You find it creepy because it's very personal. You don't need to say it like a serial killer, but getting personal is the whole point of this post

> What was your favorite thing to do at recess in 3rd grade?

Tell me how to say that when knowing someone and without sounding like a tryhard or a weirdo.

If you actually know someone and you really want to tease that out you don't ask them, first you invoke nostalgia organically, then when you're both tripping down memory lane you offer up your own favourite thing from recess in primary school (starting fires with a magnifying glass, say) and wait.

More often than not they'll gift back a similar story of their own.

That was not the question - these are meant for someone you don’t know.

The question asked that I replied to was:

> Tell me how to say that when knowing someone

The answer I gave works much the same in either case.

I'm sorry, english is not my primary language. I meant <getting to know someone>, what the original post context was about.

I'll respond to your intended meaning of "getting to know someone" instead of knowing. First, 'sounding like a tryhard or weirdo' is a judgement call you make. if you suspect that is how you'd sound, of course that is what you will think others will perceive. Second, you don't need to force it; nothing in this advice says "ignore all semblance of conversational flow." Thirdly, and more directly, people will only distrust you if they detect you are insincere. There's so much more to communication than words. People appear as not-quite-right even with eloquent speech; people can appear sharp while speaking very simply. This is because it isn't in the words. It's hard from the analysis of this webpage to evoke the feeling of desiring to connect with someone, which is the whole point in the first place. That feeling, which is just you honestly enjoying human interaction, is sufficient for avoiding appearing as a tryhard or anything like that, because it is just you acting honestly.

> Do you follow any religion or spiritual practice?

There are whole classes of spiritual practice that do not involve belief or wishful thinking.

I understand that you want to stand out and go beyond platitudes and canned answers. But for me, I always get a bit uncomfortable with these sorts of questions.

I've been on dates where I've gotten a barrage of questions like these. What makes me feel like backing off is that they seemingly come out of the blue and appear as canned interview questions. I also get the feeling that I'm getting judged on my answer. That some answers are more "right" than others, for example the article's question about material gifts versus experiences. Will I tick the box as materialistic if I mention that my best gift was an object?

Yeah, I can see these as "off-the-wall" questions in a job interview but if somebody started asking me these at a party or something I would be seriously weirded out and would quickly find an excuse to go talk to someone else.

Wow I’m really surprised by answers in this thread - I just read the article and questioned myself on all of these, and thoroughly enjoyed thinking about them, when they finished I thought to myself “I wish I had someone to talk to right now and ask these questions with”

I guess everyone is different, I’m just offering a counterpoint, I thought these questions were thought provoking and interesting and don’t find them intrusive or anything.

These questions aren't meant to be a substitute for conversation, they are meant to be something to give it direction when there is none. If they were simply barraging you with questions, either they were bad at listening and replying to what you said, you were bad at replying in a way that they could reply to (asking your own, related questions maybe?), or both.

Most of these questions would make me uncomfortable if they came from casual acquaintances.

IMHO, getting to know someone takes time. And willingness to be vulnerable yourself. It's not a one way street.

If someone asked me what my most "radical belief" is, and then started pressing me for a genuine answer when first meeting them, I would probably just tell them to fuck off

Yea. My answer would start somewhere along the lines of: "my time is better spent elsewhere"

... becoming more toxic as it's asked more intently.

I don't think people actually want to know this for the vast majority of people, but maybe I'm projecting. I feel we tend to all be rather radical about Our Thing.

The true answer isn't as cute or pedestrian as one would expect. It's not good conversation, I think we're all just looking for compatible crazy - if anything. Emphasis mine/significant.

Edit: My username is a neat example, inspired by Mr Robot. Everyone has their type of hack and weaknesses.

That's really interesting. That's one of the questions I feel like would be easiest for me to answer even to a total stranger.

> What’s a decision you’re trying to make right now? Do you want to walk me through your thinking?

Whoa, why don't you take 2 steps back, new friend

Shoot, let me try again

"What’s a crime you’ve been considering to commit as of lately? Wanna walk me thru your rationale?"

Well, I've been considering murder because I don't think anyone would miss you . . . but you're a new friend, so let's just shoplift together!

These questions are a huge turnoff to me.

They suggest a hustle mindset that just wants to get certain results.

For me, and I suspect a lot of others, the journey in getting to know someone is a huge part. The small talk, the process of getting more comfortable to ask deeper questions, etc is all part of the journey.

Being asked these questions at the outset feels like the person asking is just trying to get more check marks for non-superficial relationships without putting in the time.

Personal perspective

> Here are some questions I’ve found fun to ask people I’ve just met to get to know them.

If you are asking these questions to people for fun, I’m very certain that it won’t be fun very long with most of the people you meet.

I've found that the best way is to nudge people to let them talk more about their things (be it work, of personal/family) from their own. Based on their own stories, and the narrative, augment that with relevant questions and keep making them talk. Based on the body language, and the tone, it is easy to realize that sometime I need to talk too and I try to "communicate."

All the questions, I feel, will come out in time eventually. Don't make it an interview to complete within a time-slot or at one-go.

    How did your parents meet?

This seems like a bad bad way to start and anything but a "soft ball". There's a lot of people out there who'd rather think as little as possible about their family of origin.

The "creepy" vibe is because answering honestly to some of these, for many people, is going to be fairly severe thoughtcrime. You'll need to exude some really strong "not a fed" vibes for those to work.

I really wonder under what circumstances one would actually weave these questions into a conversation. They sound incredibly robotic, what kind of person talks like this to strangers?

'Here are some questions I’ve found fun to ask people I’ve just met to get to know them. I’ve found that good conversations start from questions that get your (future) friend to'

Next questions usually involve trying to sell me something, donate or sign a petition

Strangely enough, I'd be more comfortable answering "Most people squirm/try and get out of answering these" than "Soft ball" questions. Should I, uh, reconsider something about my attitudes?

At first I was super weirded out by these questions, but I do think these are good convo starter but the delivery must be less straightforward, instead of directly asking these questions, I would rather start from something small then see if anything that can lead me to getting to know better about people, actually listen and respond is the key i suppose

edit: nvm I changed my mind, I think "intentionally starting a conversation" is somewhat unnatural, If I'm actually curious about a person, the conversation will start naturally

I specifically am turned off by the superlatives aspect of the questions, as in "what is the best..." or "what is the most...". It immediately leads me to think about what metric is being used to measure it, since my "best" or "most" something may not be yours, and so I can't really answer, and instead would go off on a tangent about the meta aspect of the question.

So, if you are going to ask me about something, just ask without forcing me to rank things against some undefined scale.

I think part of the point is that you share your defined scale because that helps the other person understand you and your values.

This probably combines well with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_2-22.3_Human_Intelligence_C... or maybe that's where it's from, I haven't read the full report. Always interesting to read these declassified HUMINT documents, and to wonder how I would do if I were subjected to this kind of inhuman questioning.

> What is your most radical belief?

> Gives you a sense for if they think independently. Call them out if what they say is something you’ve heard before or 30%+ of the people in the room would agree with what they say is their most “radical” belief.

This isn't a measure of independent thinking, this is whether they're a complete nutjob.

If someone asked me this I'd either make a joke or literally tell them to fuck off, depending on how serious they were. Telling someone your least socially acceptable belief is giving them a weapon to use against you, and is proof of significant trust. You shouldn't be expected to trot it out for someone who doesn't know you yet.

Maybe the OP is just used to hanging around theoretical physics conventions. Honestly I can not think of any other venue where such a question would be socially acceptable.

"radical" is definitely a word imbued with meaning in recent times and might take away from OP's point here.

I saw a version of this question in a book once and it stuck with me: "What important truth do very few people agree with you on?"

Obviously, never asking this when first meeting someone but further down the line, once you are comfortable with each other.

Does having an answer to the question phrased as such still make you a nutjob?

Personally, I value individuals that are able to ponder on this question for a while and provide a valid answer.

A lot of these questions would make me cringe off the face of the earth.

>What is your love story? Who did the wooing?

>Who did the wooing?

Mother of God...

Something of a tangent, but I misread "What do you believe most strongly that you can’t prove?" to mean "What theory do you believe is the most unprovable?" the first time, and I suspect it might be an equally interesting question.

As some other commenters here noted, most of these questions are uncomfortable when coming from strangers. But! I can imagine (asking and) being asked (some of) these questions by someone whom I already met/spent some time with and am interested in becoming closer with them (being asked and not getting uncomfortable, that is to say). Like if you meet a person in a group settings (once or multiple times), spend some time with them, they seem interesting and fun, and then you meet that person but without the group. One more important thing to note, as some other commenter below noted, the questions from the articled should be adapted to the context - instead of flat out asking "Tell me, how did you parents meet?" like a weirdo, what about first mentioning something about yourself and your parents and only then asking something about their parents (like where are they from, or something alike).

Additionally, if you just keep asking these personal questions, one after another, without taking time to give away something about yourself (and also reacting to the environment; conversations don't happen in a vacuum), that is not "getting to know someone" that is interrogation. There are no shortcuts in making friends. It just takes time (and effort, obv).

Yeah, well, I thought I could find something about finding the motivation to get to know someone. Alas, I was wrong. This assumes I already want to get to know someone, but that almost never happens to me.

Lately, I've been enjoying superficial things. When you come into contact with something superficial — whether it's people, objects, or relationships — it slaps you in the face with the reality that everything ends. It shows its true face at the first encounter.

The opposite things, the ones that give you deep connection and long-lasting relationships, are the illusion. They provide a false sense of permanence, meaning, or some deep mystical value that doesn't exist. Given enough time, everything will end.

So I'm stuck at the previous step: I don't know how to find the motivation to get to know someone.

I got one of these types of questions in a job interview once, I think it was: "in your life what do you regret the most" and I was torn between showing true honesty, possibly getting emotional, and staying professional in the answer. So context here is super important: what does this [chatty person / interviewer / evaluator / investigator / lawyer / judge] really want to know, and why? ... and what does it tell me about them and their attitude!

No one else would find these kinds of questions simply intolerable? I'm reading these thinking "seriously???"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com