Always Invite Anna(sharif.io)
sharif.io
Always Invite Anna
https://sharif.io/anna-alexei
182 comments
I overheard two very outgoing co-workers once, where one asked the other if he was having his holiday party.
"It was last weekend", he said.
"Oh, I didn't get an invite"
"That's because you never come"
She looked shocked, I think she genuinely didn't know what to say. After an awkward silence she said, "but I liked to be invited"
"I'll happily invite you next year if you promise to come"
She smiled politely and walked away.
It was memorable to me because it was such a foreign interaction on both sides from my perspective.
"It was last weekend", he said.
"Oh, I didn't get an invite"
"That's because you never come"
She looked shocked, I think she genuinely didn't know what to say. After an awkward silence she said, "but I liked to be invited"
"I'll happily invite you next year if you promise to come"
She smiled politely and walked away.
It was memorable to me because it was such a foreign interaction on both sides from my perspective.
It's probably just ego on the one side. That person likes to be invited to feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship. If I were the other person I would make sure that invitation is never extended.
Who cares if they feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship? Do you decide your framework based on mental games other people might play? Decide if extending an invite that is declined will cost you something (food, space, etc.) and whether you want the person there.
Or because they're shy and antisocial but it's nice to think that they're part of the gang - as the original article was all about.
It's understandable, but in no way nice. One side is going to bring their authentic shy and antisocial self, and stonewall the invitations, while the other side needs to keep smiling and send invitations no matter what. This sounds slightly lopsided, doesn't it?
If you would like the other side to do you a small favor every time, it's worth considering to do the same. At least respond to the invitation with gratitude and a hope to maybe do it next time.
If you would like the other side to do you a small favor every time, it's worth considering to do the same. At least respond to the invitation with gratitude and a hope to maybe do it next time.
> while the other side needs to keep smiling and send invitations no matter what.
No one is suggesting one needs to. It's a choice. And when you make it a choice, it is indeed nice.
No one is suggesting one needs to. It's a choice. And when you make it a choice, it is indeed nice.
People have different capacity for social "niceties". Sometimes I'm full of energy and am happy to be Alexei for someone, sometimes I am Anna.
You can overcome shyness to some extend. Not getting invited anymore can also be a sign that the shy person has to change something about their behavior, instead of all others just accepting that.
>the shy person has to change something about their behavior
This is like asking depressing people to stop being "depressing"
This is like asking depressing people to stop being "depressing"
Oh wow that is foreign to me, but I’m sure you’re right - Collecting invites you never intend to answer just sounds like… I don’t know, some sort of weird social hoarding.
If somebody I don’t want to hang out with keeps inviting me that doesn’t make me feel good about myself, that makes me feel anxious, like I haven’t properly clarified our relationship with them.
> That person likes to be invited to feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship.
For me, I would expect the opposite - if you get invited all the time but never come, it’s because you’re not actually involved in their life, you’re not actually all that valuable. In order to be valuable you’d have to be making the effort to be present, or at the very least, communicating your availability so the other person would better understand when it’s appropriate to expect you.
If somebody I don’t want to hang out with keeps inviting me that doesn’t make me feel good about myself, that makes me feel anxious, like I haven’t properly clarified our relationship with them.
> That person likes to be invited to feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship.
For me, I would expect the opposite - if you get invited all the time but never come, it’s because you’re not actually involved in their life, you’re not actually all that valuable. In order to be valuable you’d have to be making the effort to be present, or at the very least, communicating your availability so the other person would better understand when it’s appropriate to expect you.
It is ultimately a form of insecurity.
> That person likes to be invited to feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship
Or it was just a comment without any major feelings of dominance attached to it. Some people interpret everything as a status fight, but most dont.
Or it was just a comment without any major feelings of dominance attached to it. Some people interpret everything as a status fight, but most dont.
I'm so glad I don't understand and thus can't play these games with people. It sounds tiring.
What part don't you understand? I'm sure you engage with other forms of social status and signaling and this one seems pretty straightforward
I believe they were implying they don’t get social cues due to neurodivergence, likely autism. Hilariously you’re also not picking up on their social cues and implications, which is likewise telling.
Quite right. Reading such intense motives behind such simple interactions is one of those allistic things that has me going like ???
Not reading such motives is not a sign of neurodivergence. If people are jumping to these types of conclusions, it's their deficiency. Plenty of normal, non-neurodivergent people refuse to read much into these things.
I've read a number of books on effective communications, and they all emphasize not to read into these signals, and when you do, to go and have a conversation about it to confirm them. I found, as many have, that the error rate is about 50% (i.e. half the time you read the signals wrong).
These books are for normal people - not neurodivergent folks.
I've read a number of books on effective communications, and they all emphasize not to read into these signals, and when you do, to go and have a conversation about it to confirm them. I found, as many have, that the error rate is about 50% (i.e. half the time you read the signals wrong).
These books are for normal people - not neurodivergent folks.
Only 50%? That would be nice.
It’s perhaps even more maddening than that. Even if all these factors are at play, it doesn’t mean they actually matter all that much to anyone involved. These two coworkers might otherwise really get along and respect each other, but this is one of the games that they are playing with each other.
On the surface, implicitly negotiating over who is more important sounds horribly dramatic, but it’s a game that’s happening constantly among everyone. Usually folks push and pull over some equilibrium point, one person making concessions, then the other, in turns, with the actual hierarchy determining roughly how many turns each person should concede before making a demand of the other. This is where you get dynamics like “he’s a very demanding boss but he cares a lot about his employees” (high amplitude of switching between demand and concession) or “she’s very sharp but also hard to get along with” (doesn’t concede enough to make others feel important).
Concession in this game can be anything, small to large, from being the one who opens the door to let the other through, to offering help during personal problems, to letting someone take more credit on a collaboration.
But, again, these are all played in the implicit layer. They can be raised to the explicit layer by having a “heart to heart”, like “you’re always so kind. I appreciated when you did XYZ”, or “I’d really like if sometimes you did ABC”.
On the surface, implicitly negotiating over who is more important sounds horribly dramatic, but it’s a game that’s happening constantly among everyone. Usually folks push and pull over some equilibrium point, one person making concessions, then the other, in turns, with the actual hierarchy determining roughly how many turns each person should concede before making a demand of the other. This is where you get dynamics like “he’s a very demanding boss but he cares a lot about his employees” (high amplitude of switching between demand and concession) or “she’s very sharp but also hard to get along with” (doesn’t concede enough to make others feel important).
Concession in this game can be anything, small to large, from being the one who opens the door to let the other through, to offering help during personal problems, to letting someone take more credit on a collaboration.
But, again, these are all played in the implicit layer. They can be raised to the explicit layer by having a “heart to heart”, like “you’re always so kind. I appreciated when you did XYZ”, or “I’d really like if sometimes you did ABC”.
I did, but felt rude to just tell them they're autistic
Yeah and you were rude anyway.
Here's some advice: There will be literally never, ever, be a situation in your life when it is okay or even remotely appropriate to tell somebody else that "they're autistic".
If you figure that someone is autistic just make the accommodation you notice they need, because if you don't you are in fact the one being demanding of them to do the work to make the social thing happen on account of two people.
Here's some advice: There will be literally never, ever, be a situation in your life when it is okay or even remotely appropriate to tell somebody else that "they're autistic".
If you figure that someone is autistic just make the accommodation you notice they need, because if you don't you are in fact the one being demanding of them to do the work to make the social thing happen on account of two people.
That sounds like you projecting onto others
You can't feel powerful by rejecting an invitation that you never receive in the first place.
I had the same opinion and I am surprised by the amount of feelgood responses in this thread.
Anna needs to realize that the amount of people who have the time and willingness to invite someone out for _years_ while receicing no is very low. These friends need to be treasured and appreciated, and Anna needs to make an effort by saying yes sometimes, or at least expressing what she's going through. The friends are making an effort by keeping her in the group, she needs to do the same.
Anna needs to realize that the amount of people who have the time and willingness to invite someone out for _years_ while receicing no is very low. These friends need to be treasured and appreciated, and Anna needs to make an effort by saying yes sometimes, or at least expressing what she's going through. The friends are making an effort by keeping her in the group, she needs to do the same.
"invite someone out for _years_"
In the story,it was only first semester, so at most mid August to mid December.
In the story,it was only first semester, so at most mid August to mid December.
I came here to make a feelgood response and I’m shocked by the highly upvoted grumpiness!
“It costs nothing to be kind.”
Whenever I go anywhere or make plans to do something social, I try to invite everyone I can. You’re sending the invite already, the marginal extra keystrokes it takes to add someone is trivial. And even if you know they’re not interested, the invitation might bring them some joy, so why not?
Life is not a game where people build up points with you and you start to be kind to them only if they maintain themselves above a threshold.
“It costs nothing to be kind.”
Whenever I go anywhere or make plans to do something social, I try to invite everyone I can. You’re sending the invite already, the marginal extra keystrokes it takes to add someone is trivial. And even if you know they’re not interested, the invitation might bring them some joy, so why not?
Life is not a game where people build up points with you and you start to be kind to them only if they maintain themselves above a threshold.
> I’m shocked by the highly upvoted grumpiness!
Sadly, I’m not.
People can be quite cruel; especially as a mob.
You’d think that a crowd like nerds, with our famously awkward aspect, and the way so many of us were treated, would be empathetic, but it seems that the treatment has actually had the opposite effect. I suspect many of us have had “nerdy” bosses that were walking nightmares.
It didn’t happen to me, but that’s through no fault of my own. I had a lot of stuff happen to me, that forced me to become empathetic. If that hadn’t happened, I suspect I would have been a real demon.
Sadly, I’m not.
People can be quite cruel; especially as a mob.
You’d think that a crowd like nerds, with our famously awkward aspect, and the way so many of us were treated, would be empathetic, but it seems that the treatment has actually had the opposite effect. I suspect many of us have had “nerdy” bosses that were walking nightmares.
It didn’t happen to me, but that’s through no fault of my own. I had a lot of stuff happen to me, that forced me to become empathetic. If that hadn’t happened, I suspect I would have been a real demon.
> You’d think that a crowd like nerds, with our famously awkward aspect, and the way so many of us were treated, would be empathetic, but it seems that the treatment has actually had the opposite effect. I suspect many of us have had “nerdy” bosses that were walking nightmares.
The amount of nerds in tech is overstated and so is the absurd assumption that everyone here was bullied.
And second, a lot of what we call "not having social skills" is frequently an euphemism for "being mean and then wondering why people avoid me" situation. It may be unintentional in some case, it may be they dont see relationship between other peoples behavior and their own. But it is a real thing.
The amount of nerds in tech is overstated and so is the absurd assumption that everyone here was bullied.
And second, a lot of what we call "not having social skills" is frequently an euphemism for "being mean and then wondering why people avoid me" situation. It may be unintentional in some case, it may be they dont see relationship between other peoples behavior and their own. But it is a real thing.
I think that the composition of “technical” people has changed, over the years.
When I was getting my start, it was almost exclusively nerdy white males.
That is no longer the case. Tech now looks a lot more like any other community.
Misanthropy is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s different from social awkwardness or fear.
For myself, I’m “on the spectrum,” so high-stimulus environments are exhausting. That describes most social gatherings; especially amongst neurotypicals. It’s unfair for me to insist that they cater to my proclivities, and it’s also unfair for me to insist that they understand why I am the way I am.
One of the things that I learned, early on, is that I am the variable. It’s not something to be self-pitying about, but understanding myself, helps me to interact better with others. I appreciate it when others understand, but I don’t expect it.
When I was getting my start, it was almost exclusively nerdy white males.
That is no longer the case. Tech now looks a lot more like any other community.
Misanthropy is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s different from social awkwardness or fear.
For myself, I’m “on the spectrum,” so high-stimulus environments are exhausting. That describes most social gatherings; especially amongst neurotypicals. It’s unfair for me to insist that they cater to my proclivities, and it’s also unfair for me to insist that they understand why I am the way I am.
One of the things that I learned, early on, is that I am the variable. It’s not something to be self-pitying about, but understanding myself, helps me to interact better with others. I appreciate it when others understand, but I don’t expect it.
> I think that the composition of “technical” people has changed, over the years.
I am old enough. It is not about changed composition. It simply never was true that everyone would be a "nerd" or bullied. Or even majority of us. Or that majority of the people in tech would ever be neurotypical. There might be more neuroatypical people then in teaching, but not enough to make it reasonable default assumption.
Some people were nerds and some people were bullied. There was overlap between those groups, but not perfect circle and it was far from majority of people in tech.
> Misanthropy is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s different from social awkwardness or fear.
Yes. And what I had in mind was something kind of third. When I said "mean I meant literally "being mean": being condescending, telling people they are idiots, mocking them or their interests.
There is being awkward, which is socially punished. And then there is something else that is euphemized away as "awkward" so that we avoid saying something negative.
I am old enough. It is not about changed composition. It simply never was true that everyone would be a "nerd" or bullied. Or even majority of us. Or that majority of the people in tech would ever be neurotypical. There might be more neuroatypical people then in teaching, but not enough to make it reasonable default assumption.
Some people were nerds and some people were bullied. There was overlap between those groups, but not perfect circle and it was far from majority of people in tech.
> Misanthropy is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s different from social awkwardness or fear.
Yes. And what I had in mind was something kind of third. When I said "mean I meant literally "being mean": being condescending, telling people they are idiots, mocking them or their interests.
There is being awkward, which is socially punished. And then there is something else that is euphemized away as "awkward" so that we avoid saying something negative.
Well, I started in 1983, so things have, indeed, changed, since then. In the field I was in (defense electronics, then, financial hosting, etc.), it was definitely "nerdy white males." Probably for the first eight years or so of my career.
We also had a lot of ties, back then. Sucked. I did learn to tie a Windsor, though, so I guess it's not a total loss.
We also had a lot of ties, back then. Sucked. I did learn to tie a Windsor, though, so I guess it's not a total loss.
>a lot of what we call "not having social skills" is frequently an euphemism for "being mean and then wondering why people avoid me" situation.
Nah, Dunning-Kruger is in effect here. People are frequently far less emotionally-intelligent than they believe themselves to be, and will misinterpret the actions and intentions of others, often projecting onto them their own hang-ups, insecurities, and vices. There is also an erroneous conflation of comfort and prosociality, where someone who merely makes another individual (or, more likely, someone of the social group that individual is a part of with large amounts of social capital) uncomfortable is branded as "mean" or "an asshole", while another person - who is charismatic, but actively harming the people around them - is accepted, or even admired.
IME, "nerds" (frequently neurodivergent) tend to be observant, but have difficulty wearing social masks. This is where the above comes in: they actually have above average emotional intelligence, but because their attempts to be prosocial are considered rather than instinctual, they come off as "unnatural", their efforts are misinterpreted as malice, arrogance, apathy, etc., and they themselves begin to believe that they're socially-inept. Meanwhile, they are, unfortunately, surrounded by people who are often incapable of identifying or acknowledging this dynamic.
The irony is that this comment is meant to elucidate and inspire empathy, but it will itself likely be misinterpreted as condescending.
Nah, Dunning-Kruger is in effect here. People are frequently far less emotionally-intelligent than they believe themselves to be, and will misinterpret the actions and intentions of others, often projecting onto them their own hang-ups, insecurities, and vices. There is also an erroneous conflation of comfort and prosociality, where someone who merely makes another individual (or, more likely, someone of the social group that individual is a part of with large amounts of social capital) uncomfortable is branded as "mean" or "an asshole", while another person - who is charismatic, but actively harming the people around them - is accepted, or even admired.
IME, "nerds" (frequently neurodivergent) tend to be observant, but have difficulty wearing social masks. This is where the above comes in: they actually have above average emotional intelligence, but because their attempts to be prosocial are considered rather than instinctual, they come off as "unnatural", their efforts are misinterpreted as malice, arrogance, apathy, etc., and they themselves begin to believe that they're socially-inept. Meanwhile, they are, unfortunately, surrounded by people who are often incapable of identifying or acknowledging this dynamic.
The irony is that this comment is meant to elucidate and inspire empathy, but it will itself likely be misinterpreted as condescending.
> who merely makes another individual (or, more likely, someone of the social group that individual is a part of with large amounts of social capital) uncomfortable is branded as "mean" or "an asshole"
I am talking about people who are insult others, mean, condescending, refuse to consider very real and practical needs of others as valid. These absolutely exist and they get euphemized away, just like you do it now, as "just being awkward and misunderstood".
You basically refuse to consider such situation, unless the person in question is also charismatic. If someone is not highly charismatic, they can not be jerk, basically.
> The irony is that this comment is meant to elucidate and inspire empathy, but it will itself likely be misinterpreted as condescending.
You are refusing to listen and read what I said, projecting some kind of completely different situations onto the one I described. That wont elucidate empathy, because you are simply not considering what I said in the first place.
> they actually have above average emotional intelligence, but because their attempts to be prosocial are [...] their efforts are misinterpreted as malice, arrogance, apathy
I will stop at "malice". If on ended up doing harm to others unintentionally, his/her emotional and social intelligence is not high. And if it was not unintentional or result of not caring about others, then it is what it is.
Same goes with arrogance. Someone is being overbearing manner to others or operates on the assumption that others are dumb so much, that it is noticeable. When others notice, their conclusion that he is arrogant is correct and valid. It is not awkwardness nor fear nor anything like that.
I am talking about people who are insult others, mean, condescending, refuse to consider very real and practical needs of others as valid. These absolutely exist and they get euphemized away, just like you do it now, as "just being awkward and misunderstood".
You basically refuse to consider such situation, unless the person in question is also charismatic. If someone is not highly charismatic, they can not be jerk, basically.
> The irony is that this comment is meant to elucidate and inspire empathy, but it will itself likely be misinterpreted as condescending.
You are refusing to listen and read what I said, projecting some kind of completely different situations onto the one I described. That wont elucidate empathy, because you are simply not considering what I said in the first place.
> they actually have above average emotional intelligence, but because their attempts to be prosocial are [...] their efforts are misinterpreted as malice, arrogance, apathy
I will stop at "malice". If on ended up doing harm to others unintentionally, his/her emotional and social intelligence is not high. And if it was not unintentional or result of not caring about others, then it is what it is.
Same goes with arrogance. Someone is being overbearing manner to others or operates on the assumption that others are dumb so much, that it is noticeable. When others notice, their conclusion that he is arrogant is correct and valid. It is not awkwardness nor fear nor anything like that.
>I am talking about people who are insult others, mean, condescending, refuse to consider very real and practical needs of others as valid. These absolutely exist and they get euphemized away, just like you do it now, as "just being awkward and misunderstood".
I didn't say that it doesn't happen. I said that people are very bad at distinguishing when it does from when it isn't happening. The crux of this discussion is regarding when one should make assumptions about someone's possibly antisocial behavior, and I'm saying that most people aren't able to do this in a way that isn't itself antisocial.
>You are refusing to listen and read what I said, projecting some kind of completely different situations onto the one I described. That wont elucidate empathy, because you are simply not considering what I said in the first place.
Please consider the implications of the fact that I said "elucidate and inspire empathy," not "elucidate empathy".
>If on ended up doing harm to others unintentionally
Discomfort is not necessarily harm. You are likely to feel discomfort when you're wrong. That should be okay, as correcting that since of discomfort should shepherd you to a more correct stance.
If not, then there's an element of hypocrisy involved, as "nerds" (often neurodivergent) are frequently made to feel uncomfortable. They are told that this discomfort is natural and simply a part of socialization, even while they're the only ones made to feel this way (and often because of misinterpretations of their behavior or intent). This reservation of a right to comfort to a default group is an ACTUAL harm, as it's a tenet of many social ills, including classism, white supremacy, and caste.
I didn't say that it doesn't happen. I said that people are very bad at distinguishing when it does from when it isn't happening. The crux of this discussion is regarding when one should make assumptions about someone's possibly antisocial behavior, and I'm saying that most people aren't able to do this in a way that isn't itself antisocial.
>You are refusing to listen and read what I said, projecting some kind of completely different situations onto the one I described. That wont elucidate empathy, because you are simply not considering what I said in the first place.
Please consider the implications of the fact that I said "elucidate and inspire empathy," not "elucidate empathy".
>If on ended up doing harm to others unintentionally
Discomfort is not necessarily harm. You are likely to feel discomfort when you're wrong. That should be okay, as correcting that since of discomfort should shepherd you to a more correct stance.
If not, then there's an element of hypocrisy involved, as "nerds" (often neurodivergent) are frequently made to feel uncomfortable. They are told that this discomfort is natural and simply a part of socialization, even while they're the only ones made to feel this way (and often because of misinterpretations of their behavior or intent). This reservation of a right to comfort to a default group is an ACTUAL harm, as it's a tenet of many social ills, including classism, white supremacy, and caste.
Bullied people repeating the cycle of bullying is unfortunately not a new phenomenon.
Extending an invitation is indeed a kindness. But repeatedly declining them signals that the invitations are unwelcome and unvalued. It's really that simple. Relationships aren't one-sided.
Coincidentally, I just had a conversation with my wife about this. She likes doing girls-night with her friends, but she gets frustrated that nobody else prompts it. They always say yes, and they always have a good time, but she complains that it’s always her doing the inviting, and that it’s one-sided.
To me, a relationship doesn’t need two people to maintain and keep it going: it only really needs one, so be that one person!
I realize people are busy and have their own lives, but I still call, I still ask how they are, I still ask what they’ve been up to. Gestures like these are tiny, tiny investments that pay off in the form of a rich, robust social life.
Nobody has ever told me stop reaching out, stop trying, but if they did, of course I would.
To me, a relationship doesn’t need two people to maintain and keep it going: it only really needs one, so be that one person!
I realize people are busy and have their own lives, but I still call, I still ask how they are, I still ask what they’ve been up to. Gestures like these are tiny, tiny investments that pay off in the form of a rich, robust social life.
Nobody has ever told me stop reaching out, stop trying, but if they did, of course I would.
In my experience, it takes two people, but they're not necessarily playing the same role. Social circles are maintained amongst pretty much any group that has at least one person who is willing to take the initiative to invite people to things, and at least one person who almost always says "yes" to invitations.
I tend to take a relatively Stirnerite view of it: As long as I'm getting more enjoyment out of hanging out with someone than the effort of inviting them, I'll keep inviting them even if they never proactively invite me to do stuff, because it's still in my self-interest. If someone always says "Hell yeah", or at least "Can't do it that day, how about this other day", then the negatives of slight inconvenience of planning are wildly dwarfed by the positive of hanging out with this person I like to hang out with. If they say no frequently, then I'm experiencing far more negatives (beyond the linear scaling of energy to invite per frequency of meetups, rejection is a big demotivator).
I tend to take a relatively Stirnerite view of it: As long as I'm getting more enjoyment out of hanging out with someone than the effort of inviting them, I'll keep inviting them even if they never proactively invite me to do stuff, because it's still in my self-interest. If someone always says "Hell yeah", or at least "Can't do it that day, how about this other day", then the negatives of slight inconvenience of planning are wildly dwarfed by the positive of hanging out with this person I like to hang out with. If they say no frequently, then I'm experiencing far more negatives (beyond the linear scaling of energy to invite per frequency of meetups, rejection is a big demotivator).
We're talking about different things here. In the linked article, Anna never accepts the invitation, nor does she propose alternatives. It's OK for someone to intiate contact more often than others, as long as the counterparty actually accepts the invitation every so often (or picks up the phone or chats or responds positively). That's not the case with Anna, who repeatedly says "nah" in the face of consistent kindness and consideration.
> as long as the counterparty actually accepts the invitation every so often
Per the article, the collegiate counterparty did accept other invitations:
Per the article, the collegiate counterparty did accept other invitations:
We ended up hanging out quite a bit during those early months.
“Why do you keep inviting Anna out when she’ll just say no?”
“I know she’s always going to say no, but that’s not the point. I invite her out so she’ll always feel included in the group.”If it's indeed specifically about party invites and not other things, then you're right and I misread it. I wish the author were more explicit about that beyond just a fleeting line at the beginning "We ended up hanging out quite a bit during those early months."
My read was that Anna never acted like she's actually part the group because she's only ever shown repeatedly declining invitations.
My read was that Anna never acted like she's actually part the group because she's only ever shown repeatedly declining invitations.
Another comment relevant to partying:
definitely a goody-two-shoes> But repeatedly declining them signals that the invitations are unwelcome and unvalued
Or they just can't make it each time.
> It's really that simple.
Simple, yet wrong.
Or they just can't make it each time.
> It's really that simple.
Simple, yet wrong.
Nobody wants to be the clingy weirdo who doesn't take no for an answer…
> Life is not a game where people build up points with you and you start to be kind to them only if they maintain themselves above a threshold.
Be careful. It is trivial for others to take advantage of such selfless kindness. Ingratitude is common, as is sociopathy. Altruists often discover that the world does not reciprocate.
Be careful. It is trivial for others to take advantage of such selfless kindness. Ingratitude is common, as is sociopathy. Altruists often discover that the world does not reciprocate.
Is there any data on this? Ingratitude and sociopathy are not at all common in my experience. Differences in character, defensiveness, insecurity are more common already (and sometimes they look like ingratitude when you don't understand the other person's point of view), but the vast majority of people I meet are just nice...
And yet, at the end of the day, I always sleep better knowing that I put the effort in to be a good person, even if it didn’t work out the way I’d hoped.
I get the cynicism; it’s easy to feel like the world is just full of uncaring people sometimes. But, does adding one more help?
I get the cynicism; it’s easy to feel like the world is just full of uncaring people sometimes. But, does adding one more help?
You aren't a good person for being subservient. You are a bad person, because you are enabling bad people.
Evil is in most cases a Yin/Yang system of abuser and willing victim. Both are dependent on each other for their common goal of creating evil in this world.
The abuser from primitive motives: "I have to do it to them, because if I'm not an abuser, somebody will make me a victim."
The willing victim because he thinks it's an easy path to be a good person: "I don't have to engage my heart and soul, just take abuse and each "point" of abuse turns into good boy points for me."
There is nothing to be admired about victims and the victim cult is a mistake. They deserve empathy and help, they don't deserve admiration.
Evil is in most cases a Yin/Yang system of abuser and willing victim. Both are dependent on each other for their common goal of creating evil in this world.
The abuser from primitive motives: "I have to do it to them, because if I'm not an abuser, somebody will make me a victim."
The willing victim because he thinks it's an easy path to be a good person: "I don't have to engage my heart and soul, just take abuse and each "point" of abuse turns into good boy points for me."
There is nothing to be admired about victims and the victim cult is a mistake. They deserve empathy and help, they don't deserve admiration.
There’s a lot of pain and anger in this reply. I’m sorry you have had to experience whatever has led you here.
Not at all. It's a reflection on human behaviour, in the content that the other commenter said that you shouldn't concern yourself with bad actors as long as you can later say that "you did the right thing". That can bring you to bad situations, as another poster warned about above.
Taking care to not be an abuser and to not be a victim is rather the best path, even if it demands more from the person. It's easy to just do what others tell you, but it will soon bring misery.
Taking care to not be an abuser and to not be a victim is rather the best path, even if it demands more from the person. It's easy to just do what others tell you, but it will soon bring misery.
> You aren't a good person for being subservient. You are a bad person, because you are enabling bad people.
To stay on topic:
You definitely are not going to be invited to my parties!
To stay on topic:
You definitely are not going to be invited to my parties!
Wow, what a thread drift! I thought we were talking about inviting friends to have fun.
It's that hope that things will work out that causes suffering and disappointment.
"I'll be nice, and others will be nice in turn" is magical thinking. There is no such deal in place.
It's perfectly possible for others to soak up all that niceness and then suddenly leave without being equally nice in return. If pressed, they might even say they didn't ask for the goodness that befell them, they were just happy to accept when it was offered, thereby absolving themselves of any obligation.
"I'll be nice, and others will be nice in turn" is magical thinking. There is no such deal in place.
It's perfectly possible for others to soak up all that niceness and then suddenly leave without being equally nice in return. If pressed, they might even say they didn't ask for the goodness that befell them, they were just happy to accept when it was offered, thereby absolving themselves of any obligation.
> Be careful. It is trivial for others to take advantage of such selfless kindness.
What harm does is do? Altruistic kindness is not affected by the response. That's the point. Being "exploited" for kindness is not possible, it's not a currency.
> Ingratitude is common, as is sociopathy.
Source? If anything, most anecdotes point to the opposite, gratitude and kindness is extremely common.
What harm does is do? Altruistic kindness is not affected by the response. That's the point. Being "exploited" for kindness is not possible, it's not a currency.
> Ingratitude is common, as is sociopathy.
Source? If anything, most anecdotes point to the opposite, gratitude and kindness is extremely common.
My comment was not meant as a judgment on Anna, and if she's depressed, I would not put this kind of onus on her.
I was merely pointing out that most people who don't respond or always say "no" are not like the Anna in this submission. If I know someone who is in similar shoes as Anna, then I have no problem continuing to invite.
I was merely pointing out that most people who don't respond or always say "no" are not like the Anna in this submission. If I know someone who is in similar shoes as Anna, then I have no problem continuing to invite.
100% agree.
You'd start to think "Anna doesn't like us" and just move on. Despite what they're going through, some level of responsibility falls on them to express a sense of "it's not you it's me", if they legitimately do want to remain part of the friend group. Not engaging with the friend group is effectively the same as not being a part of it. If the "pleasant feeling of being included in the group" is the entirety of your involvement, it's actually a somewhat selfish and shallow position after a while. That's not to say that the group has to ban her, but at a certain point there is no valid reason to engage with someone (in a group context) who doesn't engage back.
If you have friends you think are depressed or have something else going on, by all means reach out, but thats not the same thing.
If you have friends you think are depressed or have something else going on, by all means reach out, but thats not the same thing.
I knew a guy who had a clear "three strikes rule". If you turned down invitations three times in a row, you were told clearly that you weren't getting any more invites until you had extended one yourself. It's pretty fair.
These days I know a lot of busy people, so my softer version is, if I invite you to a thing and three times in a row you don't even reply, I'll probably just quietly stop inviting you altogether. I'm ok to keep you on the list if you make the effort to reply and explain why you can't come.
These days I know a lot of busy people, so my softer version is, if I invite you to a thing and three times in a row you don't even reply, I'll probably just quietly stop inviting you altogether. I'm ok to keep you on the list if you make the effort to reply and explain why you can't come.
You bringing in the "three strikes rule", I'm reminded of game theory.
They have the famous (repeat) prisoner's game, where two parties decide to either collaborate or to screw the other party. People ran software simulations of various strategies, and the winner is: Tit for tat. In other words, you start positive (invite), and stay like that until the other person screws you. They you screw them once next time and turn collaborative again immediately after (no hard feelings).
I'm not advocating you play the prisoner's game on people, but it's interesting that people worked formally on something relating to this.
They have the famous (repeat) prisoner's game, where two parties decide to either collaborate or to screw the other party. People ran software simulations of various strategies, and the winner is: Tit for tat. In other words, you start positive (invite), and stay like that until the other person screws you. They you screw them once next time and turn collaborative again immediately after (no hard feelings).
I'm not advocating you play the prisoner's game on people, but it's interesting that people worked formally on something relating to this.
AFAIK the strategy was slightly different: You start collaborative, and then simply repeat the other person's last action. This means that, if they screw you, you keep screwing them until they turn collaborative, at which point you collaborate in the next iteration.
Yup. In real situations, one element is that sometimes things are misunderstood, and in particular sometimes collaborating is mistaken for defecting, so if all sides are playing pure tit-for-tat, then one can end up in a defect-defect loop forever (or, I guess, until the opposite misinterpretation occurs). Therefore, an element of forgiveness (some percent chance that you'll respond to a defect with a cooperate) can be helpful.
[deleted]
First year in collage is probably a rare case. Everyone is in a new environment and everyone's social group is quite limited. They probably know that they're Anna's only social connnection at the campus so the effort can be worthwhile.
> To which I'd love to respond with s/any more/ever/
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
It's a sed command, which (as the other poster said) replaces the first occurrence of the first string with the second in some document.
`s` is a replace command, so parent is saying "substitute 'anymore' with 'ever' "
I don't think you always have to invite every Anna to everything. Usually, there are somewhat natural groups that are relevant to invite, and you invite the Anna's that are part of that. So if I'm having drinks with colleagues, I'll also invite my colleague Anna, but not my former college classmate Anna.
Nowadays this happens even more naturally, as my different groups will also be organised in their own Signal groups. So I'll just send a group message to my colleagues group, and there will always be people in there that never go - but they're welcome to.
Nowadays this happens even more naturally, as my different groups will also be organised in their own Signal groups. So I'll just send a group message to my colleagues group, and there will always be people in there that never go - but they're welcome to.
This, especially since I don't want to come off with tech bro vibes by asking "Would you like $thing?":
[YES!!!] / [Remind me later™]
[YES!!!] / [Remind me later™]
> your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens
Yes. The strategy outlined in the article works for college, but really afterwards. It's really creepy to constantly invite someone who has clearly stated intentions of never joining.
Yes. The strategy outlined in the article works for college, but really afterwards. It's really creepy to constantly invite someone who has clearly stated intentions of never joining.
I'll initiate three or four times before I pull back and let them show some interest. Family friends are an exception.
> By the time you get to my age, your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens. You simply cannot keep this up with all the Anna's.
By the time facebook has been used to plan events, your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens, because Anna doesn't use fb and it's too difficult to send sms's. You simply cannot keep this up with all the Anna's.
By the time facebook has been used to plan events, your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens, because Anna doesn't use fb and it's too difficult to send sms's. You simply cannot keep this up with all the Anna's.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but FWIW I never used social networks - at least not the ones you can use to plan events (LinkedIn doesn't count).
Alice and Bob are planning a party, they might invite Anna but don't want Mallory to show up and ruin everything so they turn to Facebook and create a closed group for party planning. Anna, being privacy conscious, doesn't use fb and expects to receive an invite on Signal. But Alice and Bob decide not to invite Anna because they're Danish politicians and Anna is against Chat Control.
To further the analogy, Alice and Bob decide on potentially emailing Anna instead but Zuckerberg is such a megalomaniac that he's overriden everybody's email addresses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433
("But that's on Facebook, which Anna doesn't have" - true, but apparently syncing contacts with Facebook - something FB presumably often does automatically - will wipe out email addresses of your contacts)
("But that's on Facebook, which Anna doesn't have" - true, but apparently syncing contacts with Facebook - something FB presumably often does automatically - will wipe out email addresses of your contacts)
This is especially valuable for friends who struggle with depression.
They almost never feel like going out because depression sucks out all their energy. But they'll appreciate the invite and that they're not forgotten. It's harder this way for them to isolate and go deeper down the spiral.
One rule that helped me fight my depression was to accept invites no matter what. Go to the loud bar I don't like? I'm in. Cake decorating workshop with annoyingly cheerful Jennifer? Sign me up. Join Joel for his 5am workout? I'm not sleeping anyway.
You get the idea. But it can only work when others take the initiative.
One rule that helped me fight my depression was to accept invites no matter what. Go to the loud bar I don't like? I'm in. Cake decorating workshop with annoyingly cheerful Jennifer? Sign me up. Join Joel for his 5am workout? I'm not sleeping anyway.
You get the idea. But it can only work when others take the initiative.
I think one of the most important lessons in life (even as a healthy person) is realizing “motivation and action are cyclically causal”
Of course “action follows motivation” but even when not motivated “motivation follows action”.
For example, even as a healthy person I am not always motivated to go to the gym after a busy day at work which I am “so tired from”. I go dispite the lack of motivation. Unsurprisingly, I walk out of the gym feeling re-motivated and “with more energy”.
Of course “action follows motivation” but even when not motivated “motivation follows action”.
For example, even as a healthy person I am not always motivated to go to the gym after a busy day at work which I am “so tired from”. I go dispite the lack of motivation. Unsurprisingly, I walk out of the gym feeling re-motivated and “with more energy”.
There are different types of depression, and going to a party when you're depressed can definitely exacerbate the depression.
It sucks being alone at home. It sucks more to be alone in a party.
It sucks being alone at home. It sucks more to be alone in a party.
Acting with neither intrinsic nor extrinsic motivation is technically impossible, no? Otherwise, i wonder how this mysterious third force compelling you into a gym absent motivation relates to your personal psychology / environment, and how executive dysfunction (both genetic, and technology-induced) fits into the picture.
You can take advantage of this phenomenon to snowball small actions into bigger ones, too. To get into the habit of working out, I started going to the gym everyday. I didn't work out everyday, but the act of going out of my way to be at the gym lent me the motivation to actually work out more often than not.
Facts!
I now get to the gym (or some form of exercise) 6 days a week. That was entirely because I made the decision to go to the gym and watch some YouTube.
Then I’d end up staying 90 mins but I’d get my 50 min workout in with a lot of long breaks! Then things started becoming a habit but I still have many days where I just watch YouTube at the gym lol
I now get to the gym (or some form of exercise) 6 days a week. That was entirely because I made the decision to go to the gym and watch some YouTube.
Then I’d end up staying 90 mins but I’d get my 50 min workout in with a lot of long breaks! Then things started becoming a habit but I still have many days where I just watch YouTube at the gym lol
I like how my friend phrased it:
You can create energy through effort.
You can create energy through effort.
Excellent point. As somebody with experience of major depression, even when you don't get taken up on your offer, always make sure people have an alternative to suicide. Put something in their calendar, even if you're sure they won't show up.
This is one main reason loneliness is a silent killer: nothing gets put into the calendar.
This is one main reason loneliness is a silent killer: nothing gets put into the calendar.
I have a counter-anecdote.
In order to get over my social anxiety I did the same. First year of college, I'm in to every event, hangout and gathering. I made many close friends, connections, memories.
Yet after any significant social interaction I was somehow, inexplicably, almost mysteriously, extremely exhausted. A lunch with few close friends would have me resting on the couch for a few hours afterwards. A meetup with more people would incapacitate me for the weekend. There was no alcohol or anything, the exhaustion wasn't physical but mental.
I kept at it for a year but the anxiety never eased off like so many "Get out of your room, touch grass, socialize" people claim. By the second year I was literally dreading getting out of my dorm room to get groceries for the off chance I'd meet a friend in the building. Meanwhile everybody loved me and were very friendly to me, but for some reason I was feeling like secretly everybody doesn't like me. I had negative amounts of self confidence and had constant people-pleasing behavior.
My friends kept inviting me because I was showing up to every event.
It turns out I had undiagnosed autism and ADHD. I was masking all this time[1]. The reason I felt why everybody doesn't like me was because I didn't like my friends, but never deemed my emotions important enough to even realize that.
After I realized this I let go of %99 of my "friendship"s and I'm much, much happier, content and stress-free than ever before. The comfortable level of socialization for me is maybe an outdoor activity with a close friend once a month.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_masking
In order to get over my social anxiety I did the same. First year of college, I'm in to every event, hangout and gathering. I made many close friends, connections, memories.
Yet after any significant social interaction I was somehow, inexplicably, almost mysteriously, extremely exhausted. A lunch with few close friends would have me resting on the couch for a few hours afterwards. A meetup with more people would incapacitate me for the weekend. There was no alcohol or anything, the exhaustion wasn't physical but mental.
I kept at it for a year but the anxiety never eased off like so many "Get out of your room, touch grass, socialize" people claim. By the second year I was literally dreading getting out of my dorm room to get groceries for the off chance I'd meet a friend in the building. Meanwhile everybody loved me and were very friendly to me, but for some reason I was feeling like secretly everybody doesn't like me. I had negative amounts of self confidence and had constant people-pleasing behavior.
My friends kept inviting me because I was showing up to every event.
It turns out I had undiagnosed autism and ADHD. I was masking all this time[1]. The reason I felt why everybody doesn't like me was because I didn't like my friends, but never deemed my emotions important enough to even realize that.
After I realized this I let go of %99 of my "friendship"s and I'm much, much happier, content and stress-free than ever before. The comfortable level of socialization for me is maybe an outdoor activity with a close friend once a month.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_masking
Wow, I really relate to this. It got to the point where I was reading self-help about social skills and such, and tried to follow the "always say yes" like you did and "never eat alone" type fluff advice. People had lots of good things to say about me, and I even tried doing things like writing those things down in a gratitude journal or taking screenshots of the texts, etc, to help shift my mindset (unsuccessfully). I still have the low self-confidence and people-pleasing you talk about to this day.
To your last point, I'm feeling much better when not pushing myself so hard to be social but the question I'm grappling with now is somewhat selfish but about how to make sure I have support? E.g. I had a friend who just went through a cancer diagnosis and a lot of us friends and his community rallied for him. It also made me wonder about what happens if I get very sick, or lose my job and don't have a professional network to reach out to or personal/friendship support, or just if my car breaks down at 1am or something, or just being very lonely without real close friends.
How are you reconciling this sort of thing in your own life?
To your last point, I'm feeling much better when not pushing myself so hard to be social but the question I'm grappling with now is somewhat selfish but about how to make sure I have support? E.g. I had a friend who just went through a cancer diagnosis and a lot of us friends and his community rallied for him. It also made me wonder about what happens if I get very sick, or lose my job and don't have a professional network to reach out to or personal/friendship support, or just if my car breaks down at 1am or something, or just being very lonely without real close friends.
How are you reconciling this sort of thing in your own life?
To be honest, I don't have a good answer.
Indeed, I don't have the friend network since I stopped forcing myself to be social. Most people don't call again if you don't answer their calls for a few months [1].
I too witnessed people calling their friends for help in hard situations (like car broke down at 1am) and wondered who I could call if that happened to me.
I have a family and extended family who are very supportive. That is my social safety net, and they would help in any serious issue like money, car broke down at 1am, etc. This is a part of our culture where I live (It's not the US.) If you don't have that, it gets trickier.
For example, if you live in a different city than your family (which is a historically new phenomenon) you can't rely on them for car breakdown at 1 am situation.
Setting aside family, I think, for life-and-death issues (e.g. cancer) even people who know you at a superficial level (e.g. classmates, colleagues) would be willing to help, at least where I live.
For middle sized issues (car breakdown at 1am) I could call exactly 1 friend in my hometown, and 1 another in the city I study. They are close friends who like me as the person I am. They are content with our low-effort low-contact friendship. If you want advice, I think if you meet enough people (that's the hard part ofc) you'll eventually find one of these. Funnily one of these friends is extremely social, the sort of person you'd expect to greatly succeed in politics.
For smaller matters (e.g. an assignment in college) I have to admit I refrained from asking people for most anything ever since I stopped being forcibly social. This did lead to some (small) losses over time.
I live by the principle of "never ask any more than you gave to a person". Though it's not uncommon to see NT people who barely know each other confidently ask for small favors, offering nothing in return, simply because they don't have the social anxiety that I do.
1: I know it's rude. But iykyk the anxiety.
Indeed, I don't have the friend network since I stopped forcing myself to be social. Most people don't call again if you don't answer their calls for a few months [1].
I too witnessed people calling their friends for help in hard situations (like car broke down at 1am) and wondered who I could call if that happened to me.
I have a family and extended family who are very supportive. That is my social safety net, and they would help in any serious issue like money, car broke down at 1am, etc. This is a part of our culture where I live (It's not the US.) If you don't have that, it gets trickier.
For example, if you live in a different city than your family (which is a historically new phenomenon) you can't rely on them for car breakdown at 1 am situation.
Setting aside family, I think, for life-and-death issues (e.g. cancer) even people who know you at a superficial level (e.g. classmates, colleagues) would be willing to help, at least where I live.
For middle sized issues (car breakdown at 1am) I could call exactly 1 friend in my hometown, and 1 another in the city I study. They are close friends who like me as the person I am. They are content with our low-effort low-contact friendship. If you want advice, I think if you meet enough people (that's the hard part ofc) you'll eventually find one of these. Funnily one of these friends is extremely social, the sort of person you'd expect to greatly succeed in politics.
For smaller matters (e.g. an assignment in college) I have to admit I refrained from asking people for most anything ever since I stopped being forcibly social. This did lead to some (small) losses over time.
I live by the principle of "never ask any more than you gave to a person". Though it's not uncommon to see NT people who barely know each other confidently ask for small favors, offering nothing in return, simply because they don't have the social anxiety that I do.
1: I know it's rude. But iykyk the anxiety.
I also feel similarly about owing people things. I think it does tend to bind people together to have a history of giving to each other and receiving but like you mention, it can be anxiety-inducing as well.
Thanks for the advice, I know there's not really a "perfect" solution, I was just curious about how you've approached it in your own life so I appreciate you sharing.
Thanks for the advice, I know there's not really a "perfect" solution, I was just curious about how you've approached it in your own life so I appreciate you sharing.
I'm in my 40s now, but when I was very young I had quite a rough time living in shared accommodation. It was people reaching out and asking me if I wanted to go out, whether or not I could, that in the same way stuck with me as helping to deal with being lonely. I still have the memory of peoples kindness and this story reminded me of those kindnesses. It's kind of a beautiful memory to have, even when the times were dark.
My interpretation is that Alexei might well have understood that Anna felt lonely / homesick. The reaching out could well have been simply sympathetic and well thought through to help include someone. That's what people did for me when I was young and out of my depth. Those people probably helped steer me into a good place when it could've gone bad.
It's always nice to reflect on the kindness of others. :)
My interpretation is that Alexei might well have understood that Anna felt lonely / homesick. The reaching out could well have been simply sympathetic and well thought through to help include someone. That's what people did for me when I was young and out of my depth. Those people probably helped steer me into a good place when it could've gone bad.
It's always nice to reflect on the kindness of others. :)
> My interpretation is that Alexei might well have understood that Anna felt lonely / homesick.
Maybe? Perhaps Alexei was just one of those rare people who treated everybody with kindness?
Either way, respect to Alexei - and everybody like him.
Maybe? Perhaps Alexei was just one of those rare people who treated everybody with kindness?
Either way, respect to Alexei - and everybody like him.
I'll add to this: it's usually not only OK, but appreciated when you're explicit about this.
I'm not a very social person by nature, and it has taken years -- decades, actually -- for me to get to the point where I feel comfortable in professional situations. One of the strategies I've developed to cope with this is to just be completely honest and upfront about my intentions.
This has backfired a couple of times when I started doing it, so I've since modified it to "wait until you're confident they're not shady". With that addition it has served me well.
I'm not a very social person by nature, and it has taken years -- decades, actually -- for me to get to the point where I feel comfortable in professional situations. One of the strategies I've developed to cope with this is to just be completely honest and upfront about my intentions.
This has backfired a couple of times when I started doing it, so I've since modified it to "wait until you're confident they're not shady". With that addition it has served me well.
> This has backfired a couple of times
Mind telling more about that?
Mind telling more about that?
In short, there are some things that are risky to tell your boss. The biggest one is if you’re unhappy.
A good boss will try to work with you to resolve the issue, and help you transition to another role or company if that isn’t possible. A bad one will undermine you, violate your confidences by reporting the concern up the chain, or even outright fire you. I’ve had the all of the above happen, though it’s been a while. I think I’ve gotten better at judging people, but it’s also possible that I’ve just had a lucky streak.
A good boss will try to work with you to resolve the issue, and help you transition to another role or company if that isn’t possible. A bad one will undermine you, violate your confidences by reporting the concern up the chain, or even outright fire you. I’ve had the all of the above happen, though it’s been a while. I think I’ve gotten better at judging people, but it’s also possible that I’ve just had a lucky streak.
That's exactly the distinction between formal and informal in many languages.
Really?
Now I’m going to have to brush up on my German, just so I can better understand the social “dance” of switching between “sie” and “du”…
Now I’m going to have to brush up on my German, just so I can better understand the social “dance” of switching between “sie” and “du”…
It's of course a bit more elaborate, but if you feel comfortable trusting someone AND it's socially accepted that you offer it, then you are expected to offer it.
This can naturally also used to deceive people, so maybe people will act like they trust you, but doesn't while still telling you they do, so there may be people you use informal with that you don't actually trust.
But that's the general idea behind it. Nowadays, there are some, that try to use "Du" everywhere, maybe due to globalization and the proliferation of English, but this can make people (e.g. me) very uncomfortable. I then just stick with formal and in the next reply they do the same. I hate calling e.g. my boss with informal, exactly because it implies a internal trust, that just isn't there.
This can naturally also used to deceive people, so maybe people will act like they trust you, but doesn't while still telling you they do, so there may be people you use informal with that you don't actually trust.
But that's the general idea behind it. Nowadays, there are some, that try to use "Du" everywhere, maybe due to globalization and the proliferation of English, but this can make people (e.g. me) very uncomfortable. I then just stick with formal and in the next reply they do the same. I hate calling e.g. my boss with informal, exactly because it implies a internal trust, that just isn't there.
If people keep declining invitations, I take the hint. Otherwise I feel like I'm pestering them. From my perspective, Anna is indistinguishable from someone who doesn't like me/the group/our plans that much.
Organizers also put themselves out there when they suggest and idea and invite people. Being repeatedly shot down feels bad too.
The core of my friend circles is the people who keep showing up. They're receptive to each other's plans and proactive about making them happen. When they show up, they bring the homemade dips. You can't get anything off the ground with a group of Annas.
Organizers also put themselves out there when they suggest and idea and invite people. Being repeatedly shot down feels bad too.
The core of my friend circles is the people who keep showing up. They're receptive to each other's plans and proactive about making them happen. When they show up, they bring the homemade dips. You can't get anything off the ground with a group of Annas.
One of the most difficult things in relationships is when each person thinks they are "doing the right thing" for the other, but it comes across as completely the opposite.
It reminds me of a relationship I had once which didn't work out for many reasons, but one thing in particular stood out: how we each expected to ask and receive help.
She would expect me to see that she needed help and just jump in. When no help was forthcoming she would just get more and more frustrated and annoyed that I wasn't helping. She treated me how she wanted to be treated: if she thought I needed help she'd just jump in and try to help.
But I was also treating her how I wanted to be treated. I don't like it when people just jump in and help. I want to figure things out for myself and if I want help I'll ask for it. So by each treating each other how we wanted to be treated we just annoyed each other constantly. It turns out the "golden rule" doesn't actually work; you can't just assume people are the same as you.
The invitation thing is similar. Some people will take "no" as a rejection. They know that if they say no then it means no, so they assume the same for others. But sometimes no really means "not this time, but please ask again". I have heard some people being really explicit when saying "no", like "sorry, I can't make it this time but I really want to join you so please invite me next time".
It reminds me of a relationship I had once which didn't work out for many reasons, but one thing in particular stood out: how we each expected to ask and receive help.
She would expect me to see that she needed help and just jump in. When no help was forthcoming she would just get more and more frustrated and annoyed that I wasn't helping. She treated me how she wanted to be treated: if she thought I needed help she'd just jump in and try to help.
But I was also treating her how I wanted to be treated. I don't like it when people just jump in and help. I want to figure things out for myself and if I want help I'll ask for it. So by each treating each other how we wanted to be treated we just annoyed each other constantly. It turns out the "golden rule" doesn't actually work; you can't just assume people are the same as you.
The invitation thing is similar. Some people will take "no" as a rejection. They know that if they say no then it means no, so they assume the same for others. But sometimes no really means "not this time, but please ask again". I have heard some people being really explicit when saying "no", like "sorry, I can't make it this time but I really want to join you so please invite me next time".
One thing I had to learn is that clear is kind and unclear is unkind. If your unstated expectations are unmet, it's on you. I used to be like the "she" in your story, and I realised this behaviour is manipulative and rarely gets me what I want.
> Some people will take "no" as a rejection.
People say "no" because they mean "no", and people accept "no" as meaning "no". This is how adults communicate. I don't think you can both-sides this situation.
> Some people will take "no" as a rejection.
People say "no" because they mean "no", and people accept "no" as meaning "no". This is how adults communicate. I don't think you can both-sides this situation.
But is it "No, I can't come." or "No, I don't like these things."
If you're the one declining the invite, the onus is on you to clarify which it is, not for the initiator to guess your intentions. In my life, I usually decline with "That doesn't work for me, but how about ${ALTERNATIVE_PLAN}?" It signals that the invitation is welcome, but doesn't work for practical reasons, so I'll return the kindness by proposing something else and leaving the other person in a clear and actionable position.
As the parent comment said, clarity is kindness. If you're leaving people guessing, then you're being very unkind.
As the parent comment said, clarity is kindness. If you're leaving people guessing, then you're being very unkind.
Or maybe you intentionally didn't wanted the other to guess, but accept that you don't want to clarify.
[deleted]
> If people keep declining invitations.. indistinguishable from someone who doesn't like me/the group/our plans that much
Per the second sentence of the article, declines were limited in scope to party invites, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348495#45355972
Per the second sentence of the article, declines were limited in scope to party invites, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348495#45355972
We ended up hanging out quite a bit during those early months.I think the fact that so many people (myself included) interpreted it as Anna declining everything demonstrates that the article is poorly written. Even a quick signpost mid-piece like "parties obviously weren't Anna's scene, but she was a regular at our dinner table" would have made things much clearer.
There's a big difference between inviting a regular to something they may or may not like, and inviting someone who's absent for everything.
There's a big difference between inviting a regular to something they may or may not like, and inviting someone who's absent for everything.
Agreed. If you're on Twitter, there's a thread, https://x.com/sharifshameem/status/1970238923621404690
Maybe the difference is at least Anna is taking time to answer politely ?
Nowadays, people just ignore / ghost you and don’t even take the time to answer
Nowadays, people just ignore / ghost you and don’t even take the time to answer
It also depends on whether she does regularly say yes to some low-energy things (chill coffee afternoon) and only no to high-energy things (loud parties with many strangers). And the ratio between those. If we go to some events together every week or more often, but she doesn't like going to the club, which we typically do monthly, it can make sense to still ask her if she wants to come to the club even if I know she will likely decline, because who knows.
If it's constantly "no", to anything, including a chill tea evening with 3 people or movie theater or walk in the park or museum etc., then I'd conclude she doesn't like the group/me and the invites are probably annoying.
If it's constantly "no", to anything, including a chill tea evening with 3 people or movie theater or walk in the park or museum etc., then I'd conclude she doesn't like the group/me and the invites are probably annoying.
Totally. It's fair to keep people's preferences in mind. I have friends to party and friends to do sports. Someone who never makes time is not really a friend, or at least not someone I'd keep inviting.
I'm usually the Anna in the group, and always appreciate being remembered, even though it's not easy for me to say no.
This is a great thing to remember when you have friends with depression. I had serious medical issues for a year and a half of my life and experienced depression because of it. There were so many things I said no to that I otherwise wouldn't have. People stopped asking at times and it made me feel so much more isolated. It is very true that just asking someone can go a long way, even you you're 99.99% sure they'll say no.
This is also good advice if you're sensing people aren't as part of the group or team anymore, you...make them part of it again. Putting forth the effort (which may not be returned) of coordinating and including people is often the price of keeping a group together that you're leading or invested in.
This is some of the best advice you'll ever get about building inclusive teams and making people feel like they can approach you about anything.
If you can approach them and get rejected each time, then surely they can approach you for advice on how to approach a problem.
If you can approach them and get rejected each time, then surely they can approach you for advice on how to approach a problem.
Most people do not understand passive socialization. They think 'social' always involves acting, that it means doing things or talking. For many, just 'being' is covering a social need. This can be just sitting together or like in the story just being made to feel included without the need to go beyond that.
this reminds me of a friend who we've excluded from the group b/c of the age old advice of "the worst they can say is no". Well, we invited him to everything at first it was either no responses or late responses like "sorry was busy with work".
The whole friend group took their turns and attempts at inviting him.
It sort of stopped altogether when we started getting responses like "hey, don't call me without scheduling a call with me before" or getting a text 3 days later "hey what's up, I don't want to hang out".
He's a workaholic and believes his work is the most important thing (he switches jobs every 6-9 months) so the whole friend group has now just stopped trying.
For context, this has been going on for 10 years and about a year ago everyone stopped trying.
The whole friend group took their turns and attempts at inviting him.
It sort of stopped altogether when we started getting responses like "hey, don't call me without scheduling a call with me before" or getting a text 3 days later "hey what's up, I don't want to hang out".
He's a workaholic and believes his work is the most important thing (he switches jobs every 6-9 months) so the whole friend group has now just stopped trying.
For context, this has been going on for 10 years and about a year ago everyone stopped trying.
I think there is a difference between making it clear to a person they'll always have the option to join - and pushing that person to join.
Anna in the story did not express regret that she never joined. And as far as we know, Alexei wasn't expecting her to take his invitations either - because it wasn't about actually getting her to go to the party, it was just about communicating to her that the "we've stopped inviting you to our group events because you always say no" moment never happened and she was still a part of the group. That was what she had appreciated in the end.
On the other hand, what your group attempted seems more like a concerted push to change the person's behavior. Most people would probably reject that if they want to stay in control of their own plans.
Anna in the story did not express regret that she never joined. And as far as we know, Alexei wasn't expecting her to take his invitations either - because it wasn't about actually getting her to go to the party, it was just about communicating to her that the "we've stopped inviting you to our group events because you always say no" moment never happened and she was still a part of the group. That was what she had appreciated in the end.
On the other hand, what your group attempted seems more like a concerted push to change the person's behavior. Most people would probably reject that if they want to stay in control of their own plans.
What? The group's behavior is basically just being a group of friends and inviting another friend?
Well, I read that part like it was coordinated: "The whole friend group took their turns and attempts at inviting him."
But yeah, might have misunderstood.
In any case, the guy made clear he didn't really want to be part of that group, so then I wouldn't keep asking him either.
But yeah, might have misunderstood.
In any case, the guy made clear he didn't really want to be part of that group, so then I wouldn't keep asking him either.
> It sort of stopped altogether when we started getting responses like "hey, don't call me without scheduling a call with me before" or getting a text 3 days later "hey what's up, I don't want to hang out".
This is a good thing!
It doesn't (necessarily) mean that person doesn't want to be friends or doesn't value your group; it means they feel comfortable telling you how they feel even though doing so is a mild violation of social norms.
If I were in your shoes, I'd just make sure they're not accidentally booted from the group chat (etc.), but otherwise just leave them be. Maybe a couple of times a year mention something like "We're all going to ___ next week, if you'd like to join. No stress!" just as a keepalive, but otherwise let them do their own thing.
I have several very close, long-term friends that I've not spoken to in months or years, because that's just who we are and where we are in life. If any of them called me in an emergency I'd drop everything to help them, and I'm 100% confident they would do the same. We _have_ done that for each other before.
This is a good thing!
It doesn't (necessarily) mean that person doesn't want to be friends or doesn't value your group; it means they feel comfortable telling you how they feel even though doing so is a mild violation of social norms.
If I were in your shoes, I'd just make sure they're not accidentally booted from the group chat (etc.), but otherwise just leave them be. Maybe a couple of times a year mention something like "We're all going to ___ next week, if you'd like to join. No stress!" just as a keepalive, but otherwise let them do their own thing.
I have several very close, long-term friends that I've not spoken to in months or years, because that's just who we are and where we are in life. If any of them called me in an emergency I'd drop everything to help them, and I'm 100% confident they would do the same. We _have_ done that for each other before.
>For context, this has been going on for 10 years and about a year ago everyone stopped trying.
frankly I'm a little jealous.... I can't imagine anyone, let alone a whole friend group, putting in that level of effort to stay in touch with me. I would probably disappear from everyone's imaginations if I didn't regularly reach out to people.
frankly I'm a little jealous.... I can't imagine anyone, let alone a whole friend group, putting in that level of effort to stay in touch with me. I would probably disappear from everyone's imaginations if I didn't regularly reach out to people.
I was all ready to respond and defend this guy, but... yeah, no.
All advice has limits. In this case, "telling your friends to schedule their calls with you" is that limit... and then some.
All advice has limits. In this case, "telling your friends to schedule their calls with you" is that limit... and then some.
I strongly disagree.
Maybe it's an age thing, a "head of household" thing, or just an A(u)DHD thing - but I've definitely been in places in my life where I didn't have time to do anything discretionary.
To put it another way - if they're willing to ask you to schedule time to talk to them, they're already violating social norms. Why would they bother to give you a way to get ahold of them if they didn't value the relationship? Why not just reply "I don't want to talk to you" instead?
It sounds to me like they're legitimately just way too busy, to the point that they're likely well down the road toward burnout and don't even have time for themselves.
Maybe it's an age thing, a "head of household" thing, or just an A(u)DHD thing - but I've definitely been in places in my life where I didn't have time to do anything discretionary.
To put it another way - if they're willing to ask you to schedule time to talk to them, they're already violating social norms. Why would they bother to give you a way to get ahold of them if they didn't value the relationship? Why not just reply "I don't want to talk to you" instead?
It sounds to me like they're legitimately just way too busy, to the point that they're likely well down the road toward burnout and don't even have time for themselves.
Making demands about how you want to be contacted when the group has been trying to include you for years is a dick move at minimum. You can say sorry I'll call you back in 10 if you are busy.
Trying to dress this up as adhd/age/head of household (what is that even??) is just expecting the world to revolve around you
No, learn to be a decent person.
Trying to dress this up as adhd/age/head of household (what is that even??) is just expecting the world to revolve around you
No, learn to be a decent person.
Or the person's just going through a rough patch.
I feel bad because in a few years that person might get laid off and realize they don't have any friends anymore.
I feel bad because in a few years that person might get laid off and realize they don't have any friends anymore.
To me, it sounds like both sides are communicating successfully.
The group of friends is saying "you are invited" to someone probably disinterested - polite and inclusive to some, bothersome spam to others.
The 'workaholic' is saying "no thanks, and please stop bothering me"
The group of friends is stopping bothering him
Good clear adult communication, clearly expressing boundaries and gladly respecting them.
The group of friends is saying "you are invited" to someone probably disinterested - polite and inclusive to some, bothersome spam to others.
The 'workaholic' is saying "no thanks, and please stop bothering me"
The group of friends is stopping bothering him
Good clear adult communication, clearly expressing boundaries and gladly respecting them.
Thanks for sharing this! It made my day a little brighter.
It's a beautiful story, but honestly If Alexei really wanted to help Anna, he could've tried to ease her in their group, for example, by inviting her to a less stressful setting: a library, a friendly coffee date, etc.
Anna's behaviour indicates social anxiety grown into general avoidance (speaking from my own experience), and what's described in this story is the worst possible way to help a person with this condition. Alexei felt good about himself though, I suppose.
Anna's behaviour indicates social anxiety grown into general avoidance (speaking from my own experience), and what's described in this story is the worst possible way to help a person with this condition. Alexei felt good about himself though, I suppose.
Conversely, tend towards saying yes if someone you want to hang out with invites you out, as they usually ask once and never again.
This. You usually get one and only one chance with new people. People hate rejection and they're not going to keep asking.
So a pro tip: if you're starting a new job or something and want to integrate into the social circles, be prepared to drop everything for those first few invitations. The first one is basically mandatory.
So a pro tip: if you're starting a new job or something and want to integrate into the social circles, be prepared to drop everything for those first few invitations. The first one is basically mandatory.
Thank you, a very heartwarming story indeed.
I think you just have coined a new saying - "Always invite Anna" sounds intriguing, and yet at the same time very descriptive.
I think you just have coined a new saying - "Always invite Anna" sounds intriguing, and yet at the same time very descriptive.
Along a similar vein, I was working at a company. I was pretty much the gang leader for lunch.
One day a guy shows up at a desk. I dropped by and invited him to lunch, but thinking he’d say no. There was a considerable difference in our ages. But I thought I’d be polite and social.
He thought for a few seconds and said … sure.
He had the best stories. I have good stories. He had better. He’d been a dresser for Nureyev and traveled the world. He’d taught celestial navigation at RIT. He’d raced the Bermuda race and had a lifetime winning record against Buckley.
And he was dead three months later from the cancer he had that day. I can’t remember any of the lunch gang but I can remember him.
One day a guy shows up at a desk. I dropped by and invited him to lunch, but thinking he’d say no. There was a considerable difference in our ages. But I thought I’d be polite and social.
He thought for a few seconds and said … sure.
He had the best stories. I have good stories. He had better. He’d been a dresser for Nureyev and traveled the world. He’d taught celestial navigation at RIT. He’d raced the Bermuda race and had a lifetime winning record against Buckley.
And he was dead three months later from the cancer he had that day. I can’t remember any of the lunch gang but I can remember him.
This is really heartwarming. To be honest, I’m the kind of person who always wants to include others—invite them, reach out, make sure they know they belong. But sometimes when people reject the invites, I feel like “maybe someone like Anna in the story doesn’t really want to be with me.” Today I learned something from Alexei: “I know she’s always going to say no, but that’s not the point. I invite her so she’ll always feel included in the group.”
Sometimes they have some good reason (like a religious observance) and they don't want to spoil the mood with an awkward explanation.
Great story. Alexei is definitely a lucky man to be surrounded by good friends otherwise it’s too easy to be teased by your friends like your acting like some sort of philosopher or something.
I let go of relationships where I feel the other person does not respond to several invitations to relate to me.
agreed, relationships are built when all parties put effort.
Even better, ask Anna what she wants to do. Maybe bowling on Sunday afternoon is more her thing.
Yep, if the group is constantly doing stuff she doesn't like, maybe she needs a better fitting group. I mean it may feel nice to be "included" in the invites to all the loud parties that the group is doing all the time, but if you hate loud parties, it is even better to be included in invites by a group that does stuff you like better.
These invites that are always declined only provide an illusion of inclusion.
These invites that are always declined only provide an illusion of inclusion.
> needs a better fitting group
From the article:
From the article:
After that first semester, the friend group disbanded and we all went our separate ways.Sort of. Usually people are into more than one thing. It is rare for partying to be the only thing a group is into.
It's a touching story that gave me pause in thinking about my own life.
The difficulty is, in many cultures - if you repeatedly invite someone and they don't attend - people view it as disrespectful to them.
So knowing the difference between a friend who needs inclusion, and something else might be hard to discern.
But agree, it's a story that should cause a moment of reflection on your own friends & interactions.
The difficulty is, in many cultures - if you repeatedly invite someone and they don't attend - people view it as disrespectful to them.
So knowing the difference between a friend who needs inclusion, and something else might be hard to discern.
But agree, it's a story that should cause a moment of reflection on your own friends & interactions.
I've definitely done a version of this.
Sometimes when my friends wanted to do something, I'd suggest asking someone who frequently declined and they'd ask what the point was.
Well either our friend joins us for once or she declines, but if you at least ask she knows she was wanted and thought of. Pure upside.
Sometimes when my friends wanted to do something, I'd suggest asking someone who frequently declined and they'd ask what the point was.
Well either our friend joins us for once or she declines, but if you at least ask she knows she was wanted and thought of. Pure upside.
Was hoping that this was going to be about encouraging the use of shadow libraries.
The author of this should extend his LibGen browser to consult Anna’s Archive and z-lib:
https://github.com/Samin100/Alexandria
The author of this should extend his LibGen browser to consult Anna’s Archive and z-lib:
https://github.com/Samin100/Alexandria
Never underestimate people's capacity for feeling left out, especially those that don't know how to show it. Loneliness and emotional disconnect are main drivers of depression and suicide. I agree with Alexei: always make an effort to invite everyone.
Person A declines Group B's invite.
Group B thinks that it's a desire-based decision: that Person A does not want to participate.
They don't always realize - because for many, this simply doesn't "track" - that Person A may simply consider themselves unworthy.
This is something I think I am learning now, painfully late. I'm 51. I think I'm beginning to realize that I was a feral kitten for much of my life, claw-swiping at the milk syringe out of fear when people were trying to be nice to me.
Group B thinks that it's a desire-based decision: that Person A does not want to participate.
They don't always realize - because for many, this simply doesn't "track" - that Person A may simply consider themselves unworthy.
This is something I think I am learning now, painfully late. I'm 51. I think I'm beginning to realize that I was a feral kitten for much of my life, claw-swiping at the milk syringe out of fear when people were trying to be nice to me.
Happy you shared this, such a heartwarming story.
This warmed my heart. Happy I read it.
Nice to have a post on HN about the human element, not just about homelabs and kernel patches, thanks for submitting and accepting it.
I guess a generalized lesson can be derived from this story: Never give up on people.
I guess a generalized lesson can be derived from this story: Never give up on people.
Some people really don't like the beery noisy occasions that outings can become. And they might not ever tell you.
Certainly in a company setting, for the teams cohesiveness, you should plan a variety of outings.
Certainly in a company setting, for the teams cohesiveness, you should plan a variety of outings.
Lot of wisdom in that article. You never know what people are going through. If she ever did share her problems with anyone it would be the guy who kept inviting her to party with the group.
I'll go against the grain here. If I invite someone a couple of times, and constantly get declined no way I'll invite that person anymore, because I make an effort to invite you. Declining (repeatedly) makes me feel like an ass for inviting you. And I want friends that respond, not friends that reject me. Wanting to be invited just to decline sounds.. egotistical to me. A relationship is a two way street, and being that shy is a you problem.
To even be more cynical, maybe Alexei wanted something more from Anna? Because I certainly haven't seen people invite someone to repeatedly get declined.
To even be more cynical, maybe Alexei wanted something more from Anna? Because I certainly haven't seen people invite someone to repeatedly get declined.
Per the second sentence of the article, declines were limited to party invites, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348495#45355972
We ended up hanging out quite a bit during those early months.> I know she’s always going to say no
No you don't, though. The conclusion is not logically justified, any more than the concept of a lucky streak at the casino.
No you don't, though. The conclusion is not logically justified, any more than the concept of a lucky streak at the casino.
Also consider that maybe people do not want to party and the kind thing is not persistently inviting them, but rather actually find something to spend time with that person.
Not wanting to go out "to party" is not a moral failing, a problem, a fault, something which someone needs to overcome. If you like that person you can find something to do on a Friday night you both enjoy, if you don't then I doubt that you really care for that person at all.
Not wanting to go out "to party" is not a moral failing, a problem, a fault, something which someone needs to overcome. If you like that person you can find something to do on a Friday night you both enjoy, if you don't then I doubt that you really care for that person at all.
It's a great message, thanks for sharing.
Love the writing style
Very cute story, of course I expect(ed) a HN participant to rationalize the good vibes off this article — and I wasn’t wrong — but there’s also others sharing in that positivity, keep it up. :)
This reminds me of a friend of mine from my 20s. Every time I went by where he lived, which was the house we all hung out at, so this was 3-7 times a week, he'd say "Hi G, want a beer?" "No, I don't drink," I'd reply. "Really?" he'd ask. "No, Craig, not ever." And he'd hesitate a second and then say, "Whoa."
This went on for months.
Finally I asked him if he really didn't understand that I had never had, and never would have, any alcohol. My father was an alcoholic -- everyone in our crowd knew, and knew how I handled the situation. Craig replied, "Yeah, I just figure maybe someday you'll want to try it, so I ask to be nice."
This went on for months.
Finally I asked him if he really didn't understand that I had never had, and never would have, any alcohol. My father was an alcoholic -- everyone in our crowd knew, and knew how I handled the situation. Craig replied, "Yeah, I just figure maybe someday you'll want to try it, so I ask to be nice."
We need more heroes of kindness.
We need more kind acts. It feels like these days are only focused on useless platitudes and complaints about useless platitudes, with all action taking a back seat.
Hell is full of good intentions, Heaven is full of good works.
Hell is full of good intentions, Heaven is full of good works.
it's the first time a read the second part of the maxim, thanks.
Now that was an interesting read.
Maybe she was just being polite, after several years.
"Friends" always invite us to their house. They have two large poorly behaved dogs, with no boundaries, and terrible hygiene. There is no way to explain, they love their dogs! So we always politely decline.
"Friends" always invite us to their house. They have two large poorly behaved dogs, with no boundaries, and terrible hygiene. There is no way to explain, they love their dogs! So we always politely decline.
Why Anna, and not a thousand other people in the area? She must've done something to enter the group in the first place.
You're sort of answering your own question. It was a matter of proximity. The thousand others were a greater distance in the initial conditions.
Why not everyone invite a different Anna?
I think the moral is for everyone to be individually a bit nicer, not one friend group to support an entire community.
I think the moral is for everyone to be individually a bit nicer, not one friend group to support an entire community.
Friendship
Everybody, who thinks this is OK, should think again - what if Anna genuinely didn't like parties, you at parties, music at parties or whatever else. Re-invating in that case is disrespectful, intrusive and even rude as all interactions need to be feedback controlled. Sure, any generalization will lack the subtle cues of context but its safe to say that this was an exceptional situation rather than representative.
People who seem to like this story for the feeling of warmth seem to me to be the similar ones as those who "save food" for the children of Africa - disconnection from the reality is huge.
People who seem to like this story for the feeling of warmth seem to me to be the similar ones as those who "save food" for the children of Africa - disconnection from the reality is huge.
>Everybody, who thinks this is OK, should think again - what if Anna genuinely didn't like parties, you at parties, music at parties or whatever else. Re-invating in that case is disrespectful, intrusive and even rude as all interactions need to be feedback controlled
Anna has a mouth she can use to speak up, instead of relying on others ability to read (possibly unexpressed) social cues.
Also what world do you live in where an invitation to somewhere from your friend group can be seen as disrespectful, intrusive, or rude? Talk about disconnect from reality.
Anna has a mouth she can use to speak up, instead of relying on others ability to read (possibly unexpressed) social cues.
Also what world do you live in where an invitation to somewhere from your friend group can be seen as disrespectful, intrusive, or rude? Talk about disconnect from reality.
> Also what world do you live in where an invitation to somewhere from your friend group can be seen as disrespectful, intrusive, or rude? Talk about disconnect from reality.
You are funny and aggressive at the same time. Good job.
Don't twist my words. Its not invitation that is the problem, but spam of invitations from the group that doesn't take your opinion into account. Its harresement.
You are funny and aggressive at the same time. Good job.
Don't twist my words. Its not invitation that is the problem, but spam of invitations from the group that doesn't take your opinion into account. Its harresement.
An invitation once a week is not harassment, unless some important details are omitted.
Yes it is, if you decline every single time.
I'm inclined to agree, this was a weird read. after the first few no's, there was definitely an opportunity for alexei to make it clear to anna that she was always welcome, but he was going to stop inviting her every single time.
this kinda ties into a more general blind spot for nerds on the internet. there's no obligation for people to include you in their personal lives (or vice versa) just because you vaguely know them. if someone chooses to do so and you want it to continue, you gotta reciprocate somehow.
this kinda ties into a more general blind spot for nerds on the internet. there's no obligation for people to include you in their personal lives (or vice versa) just because you vaguely know them. if someone chooses to do so and you want it to continue, you gotta reciprocate somehow.
Why is it safe to say that would be exceptional rather than representative? (Couldn't I just as easily claim it's safe to say it's representative rather than exceptional?)
Because it's much, much more probable that person does not act in a convoluted way.
Appreciating invitations that you don't accept is something many (as, obviously, many in this comment section) do not consider convoluted.
You are summarily dismissing their social skills.
It is very odd to read a one dimensional take like this, but this is hn, so I am not surprised.
It is very odd to read a one dimensional take like this, but this is hn, so I am not surprised.
> Sure, any generalization will lack the subtle cues of context
It appears its not my take that is one dimensional.
It appears its not my take that is one dimensional.
[deleted]
A lot of people genuinely don't want to hang out with you. Likely that number exceeds the "real" Anna's by an order of magnitude.
If there's someone I particularly like, I'll keep inviting him. But if the person is otherwise normal (e.g. clearly has a social life), I invite 3-5 times, and then stop. If the guy wants to hang out with me, the ball's in his court.
You'll find no shortage of people who'll say "Hey man! What happened? I never hear from you any more!"
To which I'd love to respond with s/any more/ever/
If you're the guy who always invite people regardless of their response (or non-response), you'll find that people will have an expectation that you always invite them. I would recommend not getting to that point.