[HN Gopher] When we learn more about a stranger, we feel like th... ___________________________________________________________________ When we learn more about a stranger, we feel like they know us better too Author : amichail Score : 144 points Date : 2022-05-22 12:24 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (digest.bps.org.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (digest.bps.org.uk) | jedimastert wrote: | Oddly enough, I have a surprising amount of experience with this. | I used to play piano for a church of ~500 where my dad is one of | the pastors in my hometown, and played a lot of music around town | as well. All of those factors together meant that a _lot_ of | people knew way more about me than I knew about them. | | In my experience, many of these folks thought they have much more | of a relationship than I did. People who knew my name and would | strike up conversations in the grocery store like I knew them at | all outside of these conversations. The worst part is that I got | used to pretending like I knew people and navigating very fake | conversations, in a way that I was not a fan of. It's a form of | masking that I got very good at. | | I'm moving back to my hometown soon because I've gotten a remote | job and my family needs the support system right now. This is an | aspect I'm not very excited to get back to. | paraph1n wrote: | I'm confused as to why this is being framed so negatively. | | What's wrong with people being more friendly with you? Is it | that they waste too much of your time? | robocat wrote: | It is common for people to take offence if they recognise | you, but you don't recognise them. It is not pleasant to | unintentionally cause offence when you don't recognise | someone. | | I suspect feeling offended has something to do with reacting | to perceived social hierarchy signals. | | Although I had someone take offence the other day because | they had got fatter, and I didn't recognise them, and they | were over-sensitive about their body figure. | CoastalCoder wrote: | I wonder if this is an opportunity to start fresh with these | people. I.e., just openly announcing what you told us? | | No idea if it would work, but IME most adults are understanding | about the challenges of adolescence. | | And I'm just guessing here, but I'll bet you're more likely to | get some _real_ friends by being open. | | (I'm not saying it's easy. Just throwing the idea out there for | your consideration.) | softfalcon wrote: | Alright, same thing here, but a bit smaller, cause my Dad was | just the troop leader of a large contingent of scouts. Hundreds | of parents and kids knew me, but I mostly just "pretended" to | know them like you did. | | I've met up with these people, didn't know a single one of | them. You just plainly say, "sorry, it's been quite a few years | how do we know each other?" | | If they push harder, just say, "sorry, my Dad knew a lot of | people, it's all a flash of faces when you're a kid." | | Trust me, people will get it and not give ya a hard time. When | one person did, the others told him to bugger off and stop | being so self important. | | From there on, you can start anew. Just ask them their names | and move on. | tomcam wrote: | Yes. This is the answer. Harder up front but works out better | for everyone in the long run. | deebosong wrote: | Without trying to gas you up or make you feel one way or | another about it via the associations of these words/ | definitions/ lables, this sounds like a textbook example of a | parasocial relationship, or a microcosm of what celebrities | must experience. | jedimastert wrote: | > this sounds like a textbook example of a parasocial | relationship | | I really had to try and not use that word, but it very much | was. | lupire wrote: | Parasocial is a bit different. Parasocial is when the | celebrity fakes engagement with stuff like mass messaging | that pretends to be personal. | flycaliguy wrote: | I have a similar experience in my neighbourhood. I live on the | corner and have no privacy across my backyard. I spend a lot of | time playing with my young kids. Needless to say all the | boomers 'round here know everything about me. | | My advice is to accept it, don't "over mask" but don't forget | that there are a handful of benefits to the situation. Lean | into the benefits. | p-e-w wrote: | I'm not a fan of the "duh, your monkey brain gets everything | wrong all the time" vibes that articles like this one tend to | give off. The very first sentence already labels this cognitive | pattern as a "mistake". It's not a mistake, it's a heuristic. | Psychologists would do well to learn the difference between the | two. You haven't found a flaw in the brain, you've found a | mechanism the brain uses to navigate the world in the absence of | unlimited knowledge and cognitive resources. | amelius wrote: | When you learn about a celebrity and then you assume they know | you too, you are clearly making a mistake. And the heuristic | probably doesn't work well in the digital age. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I would say that is still applicable and valid. like any | huristic, there is opportunity for abuse, but this isn't new. | | I think what the huristic gets at is the idea of like | mindedness and similarity. | | It would be interesting to explore the opposite effect, whee | the information shared is hostile or unrelatable. Would | people still feel more understood or less? | | What would the reaction be if the information shared was "I | am from a hostile tribe and hate people like you" | p-e-w wrote: | But the underlying thought pattern isn't a mistake or flaw. | It's a perfectly reasonable baseline assumption that's | hardwired into our brains for good reason. When you travel to | the Sahara and you assume that it's not going to rain, you | will sometimes be mistaken. But that doesn't mean the | _assumption_ is a mistake. | amelius wrote: | The assumption can be a mistake if you have more | information. | [deleted] | nn3 wrote: | I guess that's why democratic elections work. We believe the | elected politician knows us because we know some things about | them, even though they have no clue about nearly all of their | constituents. | [deleted] | weeksie wrote: | This is one of the reasons why I have pulled back from social | media. In feeds I see a random sample of the most anxious people | I grew up with and find myself knowing more about their lives | than I do about people I care about. I'd prefer to spend my | finite attention on relationships that are actually important to | me. | lupire wrote: | The solution for that is probably to spend time with your close | friends, not hide from everyone else. | Ecstatify wrote: | When I see articles with no mention of sample size and no figures | I just assume it's junk science. | jimkleiber wrote: | Apparently they openly published the data from the study: | https://osf.io/mkgwr/ | marcosdumay wrote: | It's science reporting. Unfortunately, the phrase "junk science | report" is redundant nowadays, but it tells you nothing about | the actual science. | renewiltord wrote: | Reasonable. But amusingly, I have the additional heuristic that | sample size complaints mean that commenters don't understand | statistics. | | Not making fun of you. Just sharing what I thought was an | interesting reaction I had to your comment: after all, it's a | reasonable comment where this heuristic fails. | [deleted] | gumby wrote: | Not a terrible heuristic, but it could just as well be simply | crappy reporting, which is common, especially in the sciences. | | They do at least link to the original paper, but unfortunately | it's not yet in sci hub and the abstract contains none of those | details. | jimkleiber wrote: | The co-author tweeted a link to an open full-text pdf: | | https://rdcu.be/cH5lt | wolframhempel wrote: | This exact topic was discussed today on the "no stupid questions | podcast" by "Freakonomics" author Stephen Dubner and "Grit" | author Angela Duckworth: | | https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/100-is-it-weird-for-ad... | jstx1 wrote: | I was just about to ask OP if they listened to NSQ this | morning. | jimkleiber wrote: | According to one of the co-author's tweets[0], the full-text PDF | is openly available[1]. | | [0]: | https://twitter.com/michaellafores/status/149978283377425204... | | [1]: https://rdcu.be/cH5lt | wunderlust wrote: | This title sounds like something written by a robot. | danschumann wrote: | So to combat falling into parasocial not-really-relationships, we | should see their content as not really them, not really | indicative of who they are, anything we have to tell ourselves to | not feel as if we're connected when we're not. False connection | is worse than no connection at all, like believing lies is worse | than "I just don't know". | gunfighthacksaw wrote: | As someone who struggled with and had to 'first principles' | social skills, I feel this even in many mundane interactions. | | People wear masks all the time because sometimes their true | self is not conducive to what they are doing at that time. | | For a celebrity entertainer who needs to appeal to a crowd of | tens of thousands, their Dunbar's number, even optimistically, | will be orders of magnitude smaller. | | Therefore, the gap of inner circle-audience will be made up by | an act relying on their ability/looks/charm which is | necessarily contrived and not reflective of their true self. | wintermutestwin wrote: | When we learn more about a stranger, we feel like they know us | better because they do know the most important thing (to them) | about us: that we are capable and willing to learn more about | them. | theknocker wrote: | boondaburrah wrote: | "without increasing the number of potentially fraught officer- | citizen interactions" | | My dude, this /is/ a potentially fraught officer-citizen | interaction. The police have done something unusual, therefore a | chilling effect is going to kick in. | teekert wrote: | Yeah, just listen to a podcast of some dude or dudette for | several years and man they become part of your life. | random-human wrote: | Had a friend vent about their parents cutting a phone call off | cause the parents were 'having breakfast with friends' and they | were about to be on again. on tv. friends == fox & friends. | loceng wrote: | How does this relate to parasocial relationships with online | streamers or NSFW content providers on places like OnlyFans? | s1artibartfast wrote: | It seems like it would largely apply. Part of the attraction is | the reciprocal positive feedback and sense of familiarity. | loceng wrote: | This obviously could allow for a widening misalignment on a | deeper level than we can easily observe. | | I'm curious how this misalignment may manifest for the | person's mental and physical health - as well as greater | societal health in the long-term. If a person isn't bonding | in reciprocal way with others ideally and in-person, and to | use or have those people as a "soundboard" or counterweight | to themselves. | | If they are mostly with their own beliefs or current | understandings of things without them being challenged by | enough social interaction - then beliefs won't be kept in as | much check as otherwise would be, where there's more chance | that you'll be around peers that will question or challenge | your beliefs on a deeper level; not thinking even anything | super nefarious but we learn and organize our own | brain/thoughts by talking with others, and how critical | thinking is developed. | | If using a parasocial relationship as a crutch without | realizing it, nor being guided towards not needing it as a | crutch, then there's going to be a growing imbalance for the | individual and society's function. | | I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with online | streaming of games or OnlyFans NSFW content - it becomes a | problem when it's more than just entertainment and more of an | addiction. | s1artibartfast wrote: | If your hypothesis is that parasocial relationships are not | a healthy substitute for social relationships, I think most | people would intuitively agree. | | I think the bigger question is the degree to which | Parasocial relationships replace or compete with social | relationships. I am more skeptical on this point. | | I thought this paper was an interesting introduction and | exploration of the topic: | | _The one-and-a-half sided parasocial relationship: The | curious case of live streaming_ | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S24519588 | 2... | Traubenfuchs wrote: | This is probably a part of stalking. You learn a lot about | someone who doesn't care or even know about you. | danwills wrote: | I'm not sure that it's an unreasonable thing for humans (or more | generally: communal conscious agents) to work this way. Indeed we | should probably just accept it for now and make use of the | phenomena as the article suggests by connecting people with more | details about others in-authority around them. | | Once a person knows more (relevant, accurate & truthful) | information about another person then they will have a better | mental-model of them, and I think that this will often make them | feel like the other person _could_ know them in better detail in- | response as a person (even though there has only been one | direction of information-flow so far). | | The error could be huge if the base-assumption is wrong, but if | it's not wrong then we could already know some specific details | of the other person's mind quite well indeed (meme-complex- | detected!). | | In certain cases, especially around the description of qualities | such as approachability and humility, hearing of these things | from a speaker and in particular if they are common with the | listener, could reasonably suggest that the speaker might also | recognize these same qualities in the listener, and this could | imply a possible connection without any bi-directional | information transfer needed. | photochemsyn wrote: | Unfortunately such concepts are widely exploited for rather | dubious purposes. I'd generally hope that people could learn to | separate the informational content of communication from the | emotional content of communication. The advertising technique | of 'the trusted third-party spokesperson' (independent doctors | recommending pharmaceuticals, etc.) relies entirely on this | sense of trust and tribal identitarianism. | | During the run-up to the 2008-2009 subprime crisis, there were | housing brokers who relied heavily on identitarianism and trust | to market adjustable-rate mortgages to various groups. Matching | up sellers to buyers by race/religion/gender etc. was a pretty | effective technique for getting signatures on loan agreements. | The result was many trusting people ended up with loans that | blew up on them a few years later, resulting in many loan | defaults and resulting economic collapses. | | On the other hand, using such tactics is helpful in getting | accurate information to people. If you ran a public health | campaign aimed at reducing infectious disease transmission, a | positive goal by almost any measure, then matching the message | to the group would likely improve adoption of various effective | measures (handwashing & general sanitation, for example). | | In general, though, people are better off if they can extract | the information from a sales pitch and make their decisions on | the basis of rational analysis, not on emotional resonance. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Exactly this. If you learn that someone is from your same | tribe, shares the same experiences, or shares the same values | this transmits real information. | | The information can mean that the other does in fact understand | you better, even if they don't know you personally. | | I would argue that it's a valid heuristic and not out of place | in the modern world. | | You see it all the time in social interactions where | individuals want to be relatable. Of course I can be | manipulated, but that doesn't mean it isn't of value | glacials wrote: | > The officers themselves also dropped off cards to local | residents containing similar information...The team found that | residents of the developments that had received the intervention | believed it more likely that local officers would find out about | illegal activity than residents of the control areas (though | there was no significant effect on residents' perceptions of how | well police officers knew them). | | This seems like a leap--couldn't these folks instead be thinking | "oh the police stopped by my building, they are paying | attention"? The real study is behind a paywall so I'm curious if | this was controlled for. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-22 23:00 UTC)