Hacker News Reader

Comment by wallflower | Hacker News Reader

A lot of arguments can be avoided by delving into the scary but true, raw but honest emotional side. I learned this from a great consultation.

Take this example interaction:

Husband: "There's $500 missing from our checking account."

Husband (unemotionally-oriented, bad): "What did you spend it on?"

Husband (Good): "I'm worried about where the $500 went."

Always tell people how you feel. Human beings have emotions. Constantly tell people how you feel. Human beings have emotions. That is how people connect with each other. For example, for guys talking about sports, it really is sharing emotions - hope, frustration, anger, etc. Talking about that new trade may really be about hope/optimism/reflection.

View on HN

I think this email is remarkably effective in blending at least three tactics, only one of which is telling the recipient how he feels.

The second tactic is rousing the other person's sense of shame: "I think this is more a matter of respect."

The third tactic is making a credible and no-nonsense threat of retaliation: if you don't pay up now, I am unlikely to help you with work in the future.

It's the combination of these tactics -- expressing personal disappointment, shaming the recipient, and threatening sanction -- delivered in an authentic, personal, yet still professional manner, that makes it so effective.

> A lot of arguments can be avoided by delving into the scary but true, raw but honest emotional side. I learned this from a great consultation.

I'm surprised no one has counter-pointed this yet, but I've found that a lot of arguments can be created by delving into the scary, raw emotional side. Although they are honest reflections of one's emotions, they may not be a correct or reasonable reaction to the situation. Such emotional revelations can provoke an equally emotional reaction from the other party, with similar reasonableness problems. This can then go any number of directions after that, from a new found emotional closeness to a guns-blazing tear down of one another. Whichever it is, be assured that the people involved are not thinking, only acting. Many more people are hurt or killed out of an outburst of raw emotion than are out of an outburst of rationality.

This also seems to assert that, by wanting to avoid arguments, arguments are to be avoided at all costs. If so, why? If not, which arguments are worthwhile having? I have seen a lot of good ideas, a lot of novel ideas, come out of an argument from two people who aren't averse to intellectual jousting. It seems unlikely these ideas would've formed if these people had spent their time instead making sure conflict is minimized.

> That is how people connect with each other.

This is not the only way people connect with one another, although it may be the most prevalent. Many of the connections I make with people are based on an intellectual rather than an emotional connection. We find enjoyment in discussing ideas based on their own merits and evidence we've discovered, not based upon the emotional reaction they invoke in one or the other parties. Knowing how people feel about ideas says almost nothing about whether they are correct, and that correctness is what interests me more. My goal in all my relationships I have is learning, maybe about the other person to a point, but also about the larger world with the other person serving as someone with which to test the ideas I come up with, and me likewise for them. Perhaps there is an emotional component there in the larger friendship, but it is not the facilitator of the individual conversations.

I hope you aren't making implications in this direction, but I can't help but feel that you are blaming the people who are less emotionally driven for the distance and disharmony in society. To quote the author Sam Harris, who I think phrases this quite well: There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. He is talking about religion, but I think it applies equally to all things.

That reminds me of the following statement: (I'm probably paraphrasing here -- my Google-fu failed me)

Your arguments can be driven by your emotions but your emotions cannot be your arguments.

> This is not the only way people connect with one another, although it may be the most prevalent.

Yes, I wrote the comment quickly and did not edit it for absolutes e.g. 'X is Y'. Which is another thing I've learned from others (Try not to say: 'This restaurant is the best. MacBooks rule, etc.' - who made you the be-all,say-all judger?. Try 'I like this restaurant. I love the atmosphere and $4 drinks'.

I know HN karma isn't important as we make it out to be but I feel pretty good that I was able to reach and communicate what I feel is something important but not essential for some, not all situations.

> Many more people are hurt or killed out of an outburst of raw emotion than are out of an outburst of rationality.

This is true. Situations can escalate to life threatening in a matter of moments. Remember the LA highway shootings in the 90s? Trained telemarketers and customer service representatives are taught never to escalate their voice, remain calm - let the customer vent. Even the most logical person can revert to sheer illogicalness in the heat of the moment. I recall many arguments with my dad that started with something simple like not pulling into the center of the intersection at a traffic light for a left turn and went to heated words/tension, ending with him googling up the official state driver's manual (for the last word, on it).

> I can't help but feel that you are blaming the people who are less emotionally driven for the distance and disharmony in society.

I'm a very strong ISTJ. I try to learn more about relationship 'technology' because I get tripped up on simple social pleasantries. For example, I was at the bus stop the other day and the guy who I've seen there before was asking if I bought my monthly transit pass yet. Since it wasn't the end of the month yet or even end of the week (at that time), I was puzzled. I told him that and added that I don't have to buy it just yet. He was just trying to make small talk! I tried to apologize later but he was like 'that's done. I'm moving on' I have a theory that even the most reclusive, introverted person has a basic quota for human contact and expressing creativity.

> My goal in all my relationships I have is learning

I don't get a chance to talk deep ideas with most of my friends. That's why I love niche communities like HN.

I can go to a bar and just people watch. I don't understand why people like to go to movies in large groups - you're not talking during the movie. Protection in numbers? Even with my friends, I can be a wallflower's wallflower, even though I want to be the opposite. The few times I've talked to everyone at a party (sun and moon aligned and brain/self-consciousness disabled) - I've had the best nights ever. Usually, when I go to a party, I don't talk/mingle and wonder if it was a net loss (e.g. if I didn't go to the event and stayed home, would I have felt better and the people there, been better off). I don't know if I have a goal for all my relationships - I tend to bounce around various niche groups (salsa dancing, improv comedy, hackers, entrepreneurs) so I don't get bored. I think the goal for 2009 if I had one (I hate the thought of New Year's Resolutions) - is to initiate more relationships. Commit. Be accepting.

Thank you for your feedback. I admire you for taking the time to write your thoughts.

What husband gives their wife access to the checking account? That's just begging for missing money... ;)

EDIT: I think people missed the sarcasm...

I thought it was pretty standard for accounts to be joint. If you can't trust your wife with a bank account, why did you marry her!?

You should see my wife

It is standard; my wife and I share our accounts freely. I was just attempting sarcasm because it seems that all the women I personally know are compulsive spenders, especially in the shiny makeup/polish/perfume aisles...

Even if she spent everything in our account, that would still never be a reason to not be/stay married to her. Money/spaending is one of the least important things to get in a fuss about in a marriage. I would love her just as much.

"especially in the shiny makeup/polish/perfume aisles..."

as opposed to the shiny computer hardware aisle, which is obviously totally different.

I generally agree with you. Although small personal accounts might be nice for small purchases where you didn't feel like discussing it with the other person. Disclaimer: I'm nowhere close to being married, so this is an idea from personal observation and feelings.

In my parents time perhaps, but not in my experience. Not one of my circle of married friends have such an arrangement. As for my marriage, we own our own properties, cars, share portfolios, other investments, and maintain separate bank accounts. We throw a set amount into a kitty each month for living expenses, but everything else is by negotiation.

Why? Probably because the average age for a bride is now 29 and a groom 31. At this point you've spent a decade in the workforce and have achieved a certain degree of independence. This kind of arrangement reflects that. For us there was never any question.

"everything else is by negotiation" could either mean: we functionally share our finances - but for tax/legal/convenience reasons we choose to keep seperate accounts...

My experience is the opposite - generally the major part of finances are shared and there are small accounts on the side.. (things like cars etc are usually "owned" by a single person - but that's more of a convenience)

we functionally share our finances...

I've definitely got one mate like that, but plenty of others are the opposite. Sounds like we're probably not representative of the bulk of married couples though.

In our case, by negotiation really does mean by negotiation: XX wants a new couch. XX either convinces XY a new couch is a great idea and we split it, or XX buys the couch. Works the same way when XY wants to concrete the carport.

It would just weird me out. I'd arrange everything so that communal bills are paid proportionally, i.e. you make twice as much as your spouse, you pay 75% of the rent, and everything else stays separate.

I didn't miss the sarcasm, but I agree with the downvoting anyway: There are enough people who honestly believe the way you were parodying that comments like this can be harmful by virtue of their effect leading these people to believe that their views are more widespread.

There's a reason why we don't make racist or homophobic jokes, even sarcastically -- the same applies to misogynistic jokes.

Re your edit - Ask yourself what your comment added to the discussion. That's what I do when I post something that gets downmodded.

The answers to down-votes usually come from that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com