= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MixedNuts comments on How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (769)
I suppose that these rules could move someone from "creepy" to "extremely awkward", which is probably an improvement. People never say no to "Would you like to talk to me?" or "You look kinda bored, do you want to continue this conversation?" (unless they take the latter to mean "I'm bored, go away").
Refusals are always at least a little rude. True opt-in forms use implications (things like "I like bowling, too bad my friends don't" vs "Want to go bowling?"), but they require social skills to generate and understand.
That sounds backwards to me: the former sounds like I really want to go play bowling with you, the latter (in certain contexts at least) like I'm just inviting you out for politeness' sake but not actually expecting you to come.
I think either of them could be the more pushy one, depending on the context, intonation, etc.
Yes. OTOH, if you say the former in a context/intonation such that it doesn't sound like an invitation at all, it kind of defeats the point.
If someone asked me point blank "would you like to talk to me?" I would evaluate the answer to this question and provide it, and sometimes it would be no.
I will have to try that at a party now, just to see what kinds of reactions I get.
Possibly off-topic for the top-level post, but I don't agree opt-in requires implications or any great amount of social skills.