6) Though topics in which the highest information flow could be achieved are usually abandoned, they are brought back in the beggining of new interactions if the people keep seeing each other for a few days, still as usual they slowly fade away.
7) When the button of friendship is really surely deep down pushed, they talk almost always about what doesn’t matter, such as niche gossip, daily events, what they did since last interaction—I mean, how likely is it that in those 26 years, the best I’ve done happened in the last 2 days? - This obviously is a bad thing, and under our assumption that they either want to know more or do better, it is a cost for both.
This sounds strange, and it doesn’t match with my experience at all. In fact, things tend often to go the opposite way: when I get to meet a new person, initial conversation is mostly about meaningless things. You want to get a taste of what the other person is like, without risking to compromise things with a possibly dangerous topic. Then, when ” the button of friendship is really surely deep down pushed”, new and more interesting converstions can spark, since the other person in no more classified as a possible enemy that will punish you for disagreement. And then, in the deep end, you probably do speak about what you did since your last interaction, mostly beacause your intelocutor already knows quite well what you did in the rest of you life, due to the previous interactions you had.
I usually jump the first part of interaction you mentioned unless I know I’m stuck with knowing that person for a while (say a new person in school, or work)
The claim is, in your framework, that the part in which interesting conversations happen, regardless of being first or second, should last much longer before that final one happens. At least some years for most people and most levels of contact.
I agree. The above seems a far cry from most “normal” interactions which happen organically.
However, I would imagine it going the way described in the post in environments where people are pressured to signal that they are interesting—perhaps people feel this at LW/cryo/ other special topic meetups?
Alternatively, maybe they’re just higher energy because they went into the meeting with the purpose of doing something fun and interesting?
This sounds strange, and it doesn’t match with my experience at all. In fact, things tend often to go the opposite way: when I get to meet a new person, initial conversation is mostly about meaningless things. You want to get a taste of what the other person is like, without risking to compromise things with a possibly dangerous topic. Then, when ” the button of friendship is really surely deep down pushed”, new and more interesting converstions can spark, since the other person in no more classified as a possible enemy that will punish you for disagreement. And then, in the deep end, you probably do speak about what you did since your last interaction, mostly beacause your intelocutor already knows quite well what you did in the rest of you life, due to the previous interactions you had.
I usually jump the first part of interaction you mentioned unless I know I’m stuck with knowing that person for a while (say a new person in school, or work)
The claim is, in your framework, that the part in which interesting conversations happen, regardless of being first or second, should last much longer before that final one happens. At least some years for most people and most levels of contact.
I agree. The above seems a far cry from most “normal” interactions which happen organically.
However, I would imagine it going the way described in the post in environments where people are pressured to signal that they are interesting—perhaps people feel this at LW/cryo/ other special topic meetups?
Alternatively, maybe they’re just higher energy because they went into the meeting with the purpose of doing something fun and interesting?