Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    My stages of learning to be a socially normal person

    (sashachapin.substack.com)
    631 points eatitraw | 13 comments | 15 Nov 25 13:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    Aurornis ◴[17 Nov 25 20:24 UTC] No.45957863[source]▶
    This post wasn't what I was expecting from the "socially normal" title. While there is a lot of self-reflection and growth in this piece, a lot of the points felt more like learning how to charm, manipulate, and game social interactions.

    Look at the first two subheadings:

    > 1: Connecting with people is about being a dazzling person

    > 2: Connecting with people is about playing their game

    The post felt like a rollercoaster between using tricks to charm and manipulate, and periods of genuinely trying to learn how to be friends with people.

    I don't want to disparage the author as this is a personal journey piece and I appreciate them sharing it. However this did leave me slightly uneasy, almost calling back to earlier days of the internet when advice about "social skills" often meant reductively thinking about other people, assuming you can mind-read them to deconstruct their mindset (the section about identifying people who feel underpraised, insecure, nervous,) and then leverage that to charm them (referred to as "dancing to the music" in this post).

    Maybe the takeaway I'd try to give is to read this as an interesting peek into someone's mind, but not necessarily great advice for anyone else's situation or a healthy way to view relationships.

    replies(28): >>45957948 #>>45958066 #>>45958210 #>>45958374 #>>45958388 #>>45958403 #>>45958493 #>>45958576 #>>45958577 #>>45958615 #>>45958658 #>>45959186 #>>45959258 #>>45959311 #>>45959721 #>>45959879 #>>45960038 #>>45960060 #>>45961760 #>>45962140 #>>45962447 #>>45962743 #>>45963251 #>>45963427 #>>45965010 #>>45965290 #>>45968230 #>>45974341 #
    etangent ◴[17 Nov 25 21:16 UTC] No.45958403[source]▶
    > a lot of the points felt more like learning how to charm, manipulate, and game social interactions.

    A lot of stuff "normal" people do is charm, manipulate, and game social interactions. Except because they are not conscious about it, we give them a pass. One of the characteristics of autistic-spectrum individuals is that they must make a conscious effort to achieve goals that are achieved unconsciously by most of us. If we prevent such individuals from learning all that rarely-written-down stuff consciously because it seems "distasteful" to us, then we are disadvantaging such individuals socially.

    replies(11): >>45959001 #>>45959237 #>>45959965 #>>45960218 #>>45960622 #>>45961078 #>>45961214 #>>45961649 #>>45961849 #>>45962901 #>>45965867 #
    pseidemann ◴[17 Nov 25 22:17 UTC] No.45959001[source]▶
    Agreed. It's the playbook of social interaction written out. Nothing offensive about that.
    replies(3): >>45959189 #>>45959208 #>>45959763 #
    1. collingreen ◴[17 Nov 25 22:34 UTC] No.45959189[source]▶
    Sometimes we find it distasteful to have things we're fully aware of explicitly spelled out. A trite quip here is "nobody wants to see how the sausage is made".
    replies(5): >>45959211 #>>45959292 #>>45959364 #>>45959745 #>>45960568 #
    2. etangent ◴[17 Nov 25 22:37 UTC] No.45959211[source]▶
    100% correct.
    3. jamilton ◴[17 Nov 25 22:54 UTC] No.45959364[source]▶
    Yeah. I wonder why that is - is it because it highlights a conflict between our actions and values? If left unexamined, it's a non-issue, so having it spelled out feels like a problem being created?
    replies(2): >>45959693 #>>45960475 #
    4. switchbak ◴[17 Nov 25 23:32 UTC] No.45959693[source]▶
    I would much rather assume the people I'm interacting with are honest and conveying their real feelings, vs playing some (probably) Machiavellian game with N levels of dishonesty and manipulation from what could easily be a malevolent person at the core. At least that tends to be the assumption when you pick up on a lack of authenticity in this way.

    When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator, it's very understandable that you should use an abundance of caution. That's probably an instinct in us at this level.

    Of course everyone is at least a little aware that they're putting on a bit of a ruse with their public persona, but that needs to be tethered to some level of authenticity or you'll just be sending out Patrick Bateman vibes.

    replies(3): >>45959930 #>>45960203 #>>45960467 #
    5. ribosometronome ◴[17 Nov 25 23:38 UTC] No.45959745[source]▶
    It may be the first time many people are actively considering these things if they haven't generally felt social struggles / aren't on the spectrum.
    6. throwaway2037 ◴[18 Nov 25 00:07 UTC] No.45959930{3}[source]▶

        > When you have a real indication of dealing with a master manipulator
    This statement seems like a paradox. Forgive my "No True Scotsman" example. If the person is such a "master manipulator" what indications do you have? The social normies will miss them, or will think they are the ones making the suggestions/decisions. This is the hallmark of master craft sales people.
    7. avhception ◴[18 Nov 25 00:54 UTC] No.45960203{3}[source]▶
    This strikes me as a glass-half-empty interpretation. Why is the stuff from the blog post necessarily machiavellian and manipulative? I didn't read any of that into that blog post. Rather, it was about how to create win-win situations where the people involved genuinely enjoy each others company. No need for bad intentions here.
    8. mewpmewp2 ◴[18 Nov 25 01:44 UTC] No.45960467{3}[source]▶
    Wouldn't you think it is more important what the goal for the other person is? If their goal is to enrich and make both of your lives better, does it matter whether they consicously use social techniques or have natural automatic ability to do so?

    It is also autism vs psychopathy. Patrick Bateman is nowhere close to someone autistic trying to learn those socially successful behaviours. Patrick Bateman is a terrible human being not because they are inauthentic, he is a terrible human being because of the acts he did and wanted to do.

    9. collingreen ◴[18 Nov 25 01:46 UTC] No.45960475[source]▶
    I like your description.

    I think sometimes this is when we find our way to the middle of two relatively simple drives: "be an orthodox group member/ avoid being a social outcast" and "avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance / admitting hypocrisy".

    If there aren't immediate consequences for inaction (especially if there ARE costs and/or social consequences for action) were very good at convincing ourselves to ignore it (or tell ourselves we will EVENTUALLY deal with it but just not right now)

    10. skeeter2020 ◴[18 Nov 25 02:01 UTC] No.45960568[source]▶
    Sometimes doing something explicit that is typically done without thought or plan feels phony and off. This is such a scenario.
    replies(2): >>45961449 #>>45961817 #
    11. tomhow ◴[18 Nov 25 02:19 UTC] No.45960667[source]▶
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

    If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

    replies(1): >>45962290 #
    12. pixl97 ◴[18 Nov 25 04:36 UTC] No.45961449[source]▶
    Embracing the bliss of ignorance.
    13. robocat ◴[18 Nov 25 05:53 UTC] No.45961817[source]▶
    That's not what I got from the article. Firstly they seem to be saying that they were not seen as phony (hard to judge). Sure they're using tricks, but they were copying tricks off other people! Not all social interaction is genuinely raw.

    I thought the article was more about leaning into their own style, becoming more intuitive over time.