I used to be very impressed by this sort of stuff, because it baffled me.<p>It certainly <i>sounds</i> uber-impressive!<p>However, I have seen how error-prone it is, and also read and understood a little more about the mechanisms.<p>For one, I have had people tell me stuff they "read" in me. It was valuable as an insight as to what vibes I might be sending out, unbeknownst to me. But it tended to be laughably wrong about me.<p>Now you might think that this is just me being defensive..."you can't read me".<p>But people do get it wrong, and a girlfriend once confessed to me, somewhat exasperated: "I can't read you". To which I said: "You should try <i>listening</i> to me instead".<p>Communication ≫ Reading<p>I have also gotten quite a bit better at it myself, and it can be intoxicating. Because when it works it is almost magical.<p>But while it can be stunningly <i>precise</i>, it just isn't very <i>accurate</i>.<p>So it's a useful tool that can yield information, but don't get high on your own supply. Treat it as a very sensitive but also very noisy channel of information.
I once met a gate agent in the Maui airport. She looked at me and my pregnant wife and congratulated us on our upcoming baby boy. I asked her how she knew. She said it was the way we carried ourselves and looked at each other. Not sure what specifically she saw, but she told us if another couple she observed who were having a girl. She said the man looked like the type who didn't treat women that well, but who was clearly trying to be on his best behavior.<p>Most of the times situations are a complete cypher, but in more unisual cases when observing groups of people who know each other, you can tell how they feel from analyzing the behaviors.<p>This author is clearly in a privileged position in the wedding group. She's in the background with the specific job of looking at everyone and capturing their feelings. They don't try to hide their behavior or respond to her, and the usual western taboo against staring at strangers doesn't apply.<p>This was definitely a good read!
I do think some people are very good at reading others. And I also think that as we generally don't see ourselves we may not realise how we come across. There is a huge amount of information we send out by how we hold ourselves/talk etc.<p>Personally I think I am very good at reading people's internal state. But I also am aware that I can be wrong. Reading someone who is very quiet for example can be hard and more prone to error.<p>When I talk with someone I often do assess how much turn taking they do, particularly with a stranger. When I'm really engrossed in a conversation or I'm with a good friend I can sometimes turn off this assessment.<p>Final point - the article was a great read. I'd have been really interested in their views on gender differences in communication (there can be differences).
I would describe myself as the opposite of OP (very bad at reading people) so it was quite a shock the first time I met someone like this. Not only for the revelation that these type of people exist, but the experience of another person reading my "internal architecture" - and subsequently judging it - it opened a new avenue of self reflection for me. And while I think there's still a lot of the subjectivity in the author's formulation, I do have a relatively new appreciation for "people watching" insights like this now.
She wrote, “seeing someone is like noticing their internal structure” — that line made me pause for a while.
As a kid, I used to think everyone could pick up on those tiny things in people — like the hesitation behind a sentence, or the way someone's eyes seem like they’re trying to escape.
Turns out, not everyone “sees” like that.
Watching people is more like passive resonance. Sometimes you’re just passing by, but your body has already picked up the entire vibe of that person. No words, just a quiet read.
I once read a small book for an anthropology class, and got more and more puzzled, and rather incensed. It was covering its subject well but with this bizarre hodgepodge of different anthropological framings, some of them quite anachronistic, some current, jumping around with jarring inconsistency.<p>I got to the end (it was a small book, only maybe 110pp) wondering what in the heck this thing was, and flipped to look at the author at the back. And it was a missionary! Instantly my attitude flipped; I was in awe that a missionary could do such good anthropology, and the inconsistencies in framing made perfect sense.<p>This author has good psychological insights, but her theoretical framings are somewhat mis-specified, inconsistent, sometimes out-of-date by psychological standards, to my eye. But it's very good stuff.<p>artist : psychologist :: missionary : anthropologist
The author draws overall conclusions based on observations at wedding parties.<p>I've know very many (techies) that are extremely introvert and yes, bored, in such an environment, yet when you would observe them at evening drinks at a tech conference, they would be engaged, open, interested, welcoming and kind.<p>I fear the author overextrapolates from a specific context to people across contexts.
This article perfectly mirrors my experience with people that claim to be good at reading people - just assume some things about person you are "reading" and then instantly believe it. It's really easy to be good at it when you don't need any grounding in reality.
This post has all the hallmarks of some therapist's suggestion to focus on the external. Bit too much projection going on here, with a very definite "correctness" to the characterizations.
<p><pre><code> most people love what loves them back
</code></pre>
That is exploitable. I tried it and it works. When I was 18 I got a job in a telemarketing boiler room. Two dozen people sitting at long tables with phones and scripts, asking for donations for various causes. Yes I should probably burn in hell for it, but I was a dumb kid.<p>The first day really sucked, but they let me try again and I came with a plan. Before every call imagine my feeling of love for that person. As I read the script, think "I love you grandma".<p>Something magical happened. I got like 3 donations out of 5 calls for the rest of the day. The boss was joyful, I was the flavor of the day. He presented me with an alarmingly large bonus when I left.<p>I was nauseated and never went back. That was my last job in sales.
This seems like a set of well balanced, if not comprehensive, principles behind how people interact. Even if it's not complete, I think it can still be helpful. There's a lot here that resonates with me, but only in hindsight. I struggle with understanding people emotionally in the moment a lot of the time it'd benefit me if I could internalize this list.<p>As they say, all models are wrong, some are useful.
I suppose what is the main friction in this piece is the constant attribution of things to body or mind, as if they are independent, or as if cannot be both at once. A second friction is that I perceive the author has definitely learned to observe well, and has successfully learned to generalize based on past observations. But the author has difficulty moving from learned to explainable.
Another observation by the author:<p><pre><code> my life became a lot more fun once i realized work can literally be anything, if i know how to sell it
(this month i'm paying rent by writing mothers day poems for tech employees to mail their mom)</code></pre>
This stuff always reminds me of "The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter" from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes TV series (This is Season 2, Episode 2, originally aired in 1985). In this episode Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are at 221B Baker Street, and Holmes gives a detailed demonstration of his observational and deductive skills by people-watching out the window.
It's having a bit of pushback for presumption here, but considering this is "just" a list article, it seemed unusually thoughtful in its exposition of the author's perceptions. Genuinely interesting to read.
This is a set of astute observations about a group of people in a setting where people are often drunk.<p>As a result it seems to have a skew highly specific to generalizing about people's "internal architectures" when you happen to be seeing them socializing with alcohol at a wedding.<p>I think they call this overfitting the model in machine learning
When I’m people watching, I’ll extrapolate tiny details into entire life stories of strangers. It’s a lot of fun to do with a date, shared storytelling is a cool bonding experience.<p>But never once have I thought those stories were anything but fiction.
The author is projecting a <i>lot</i> into the hearts and minds of strangers, based on limited or indeed no interaction with them. These are not <i>scientific</i> observations in any sense. What does the author do to confirm or refute her psychological theories about others? She's very good at telling stories, but these stories feel like fiction, not hard fact.
Interesting!<p>> People who don't pause exist more in their head than their body. The mind is top-down, rigid, quick, enforcing an established view. The mind is waiting for the other person to be done so they can say what’s rattling around inside. The body is slower, needs more time, and then words bubble up organically, one after another, without planning. People who exist more in their body are generally better at connecting emotionally with others.<p>I don't really understand this one.<p>Maybe there's a bit of a reductive or meaningless conflation here. A body can be fast while the mind is also fast. A body can be slow and pensive, and the mind follows. Being bodily 'in touch' does not equate to emotional sensitivity IME.<p>I am reminded of people whose bodies are dysfunctional or disabled or disregulated. I don't really see a correlation there where they have less emotional sensitivity. Often the opposite. I am then reminded of people who are hyperactive and always want to be moving. One might say they 'exist more their body' but they might often be impatient and inattentive in conversations..<p>Maybe I'm misunderstanding the author?
Ever heard of "Body language"? It's worth looking up "Nonverbal Communication" in Wikipedia. It's estimated 2/3rds of all communication is nonverbal. A therapist I know also mentioned something like this.<p>Many of the HN readers are developers. We want everything to be deterministic. If A, then B. 1+1=2. And so on. Hence the angst in some comments. The author may not be 100% correct everywhere. The examples seemed to get a little more judgmental towards the end of the list. But these are great soft skills to have, people! Next time you have a crazy user or boss, observe their body language. It might help.
From the movie, The Life of Pi: Animals don't think like we do! People who forget that get themselves killed. When you look into an animal's eyes, you are seeing your own emotions reflected back at you, and nothing else.
This feels like "Linda Goodman of Sun Signs" style of storytelling.
Arguments like what the author makes can never be confirmed or proven wrong. I feel like this is important work because it has a bit of mass delusional element to it (see the number of likes), very similar to Linda Goodman works, and we can see from the outside what makes these kind of arguments appeal to so many people!?
This sort of thing is called "cold reading".[1] It's well understood, and it's taught to cops and salespeople. First-line people in the hospitality industry (restaurant greeters, hotel desk clerks) tend to have skills in that area.<p>There's "Manwatching" (1979) by Desmond Morris, a more serious study of this.[2] Good pictures and drawings.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading</a><p>[2] <a href="https://archive.org/details/manwatchingfield0000morr/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/manwatchingfield0000morr/page/n5...</a>
Could all these statements be expressed as math equations?<p>Make a model of mind, behaviour and society, such that all of these could be deduced as consequences of some fundamental theorem.
Is it a little strange that the observations end with favoritism towards a kind? Or not at all? Can't people just be people, and not kinds of people?
Here's my observations from people watching:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4pmlHRokg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4pmlHRokg</a>
I used to not have this skill at all. People behaviour was just a random process with unexplainable outliers.<p>Then I vaped weed for the first time at 34, and I got this skill.<p>It makes me uncomfortable to observe how people compute their behaviours so erratically, specially when they take my own behaviours as inputs for computing theirs. I wish people would act according to a standarized protocol (etiquette).
I feel that those incensed by this article would have a strong distaste for fortune tellers. I counter that vague wisdoms and unsubstantiated claims often give us a chance to reflect on our lives.
This is phrenology nonsense and it’s shocking to see people almost nodding along in the comments. This is the same kind of nonsense people spout when they say they’re great interviewers and “just know”, when actual studies show they very much do not.
This is very good. I've also noticed I do the polite engagement sometimes and how its roboticsness is obvious to any person with not low EQ. Some people seem to just be naturally happy in almost any settings and its a very valuable trait imo.