Hacker News Reader

Comment by taylorius | Hacker News Reader

"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

View on HN

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.

> “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”?

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

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com