alt Hacker NewsHow to be anti-social – a guide to incoherent and isolating social experiences
Comments
I am guessing the author is either criticizing people who are anti-social (in the pop culture definition) or believes he was before and after some thinking arrived at the conclusion that antisociety was not the way. But I don't feel it describes my internal motivations, so I've translated them to my behaviors:
- if someone is confusing or upsetting you, assume it is your fault
- interpret others' actions in the context of your fears (this one is spot on)
- assume your assumptions are wrong and that you shouldn't even bother
- pivot conversations when someone asks you about something you actually know or are good at, it might be a trick, tell them you're dumb instead
- if you must ask questions, convince yourself you must not, just figure it out instead
- dig in your heels at no point in time whatsoever and just tell people the minimum they need to hear so they leave
- do not develop narratives or it means you will have an immediate network
- do not research the acumen or credentials of anyone
- do not grant grace to those who make mistakes, they might actually be wrong and you're not a judge
- when all hope is lost in conversation, pretend to take their side to end the conversation
- do not seek to understand anyone at all
This is a list about how to have a flame war. If you really want incoherent and isolating social experiences here is what you do:
- spend most of your time online
- overthink any form of social outreach and don't do it
- open reddit/HN/youtube/content_platform when you feel anything negative
- look at porn when you feel lonely
- constantly analyze other people's perception of you
You will then stifle your social skills and connections with people. You will feel extremely uncomfortable around other people most of the time. You will make niche references to things you have seen online and nobody will get you. Interacting with real people will be terrifying. Mission accomplished.
I think the most valuable thing here is to not jump to a negative assumption about people, something I wish it followed more closely in its other points. Virtually anyone who has a very different perspective than the group will face friction, and handling that friction gracefully isn't something that comes naturally to most people. People can get stuck in a pattern of handling the friction poorly, but the group as a whole also has the opportunity for grace and understanding that can diffuse the problem, if that is something that is valuable to them.
the author wrote this in the Leaflet comments sections:
"""
through some upsetting turn of events, someone put this on hackernews and started a piranha feeding frenzy of speculation about what / who im referring to here. so just to be clear:
i wrote this bulleted list in a couple minutes as a way to rant about the lack of charity i was noticing in 2 places
- my family, where 2 members aren't speaking to each other for petty reasons, looking for the other to capitulate and admit they're the aggressor
- on bluesky, where users are blaming every outage on "vibe coding"
if you took extra meaning from it, i'm sorry or congrats!
"""
As a anti-social person and a misanthrope, these are all tips for amateurs that assume you must be in a relationship with other people. This is not true. One can be a hermit and enjoy the solitude. My comment here is not designed for replies and social interaction. I'm making it to test my idea against the wisdom of the crowds in case someone can enlighten me about where I might be wrong. I'm seeking information, not society. This is grating to me even as I write it. Who do I think I am? That doesn't make it any less true.
I'm bad at this, not that I want to be. Well I'm bad at it with women. I go to these workplace happy hours and I just sit there in silence. Hard to relate to people talking about the house they own or kids since I don't have either. I know to be a good conversationalist you just gotta ask them questions.
It's not good to be alone, I was in a car crash one time and my buddies pulled up on the scene and gave me a ride home.
"dig in your heels when confronted with overwhelming dissent"
Sorry, sticking to this one.
Call me anti-social if you want, but facing overwhelming dissent may indicate you're the lone free-thinker in an echo chamber. Being that one guy who's always prodding the hivemind with a pokey stick has value in my opinion (though you will end up getting stung on occasion).
The other day someone described themselves to me as an 'empath' which was odd, because in the context of the discussion it was invalidating to hear. And ironic considering they hadn't forseen how I would take it.
Some people have ultimate confidence in their social judgements and the true sign of empathy is a kind of meta-empathy that allows you to consider truly alternative understandings of the world i.e. empathy for empathy.
This seems to be a very peculiar and adversarial interpretation of anti-social. I am relatively anti-social and consider this a bit of a character flaw, but would generally say that I do not assume the worst in others and am relatively introspective. It just doesn't come naturally to me, but that does not mean that I think less of others.
> when all hope is lost in conversation, retreat into your self
This speaks to me quite a bit, particularly around unfalsifiable topics I'll have with friends/family, such as theology. If we define hope as the idea they'll change their mind and agree with me, seems not much one can do but retreat into themself, right? I suppose I can sympathize with their sentiment before I retreat into myself, but taking this bullet point at face value I'm unsure how to make this a pro-social experience :/
online sociability protip: writing in all lowercase outside of instant messaging comes across (to me) as weirdly manipulative, status seeking behavior. you want people to read your stuff and to come to some form of conclusion—you wouldn't be writing, editing and posting text otherwise—but you feel you have to put your ideas and your vulnerability behind a moat of detached, nonchalant aesthetics
nothing personnel, kid
Since most of these comments seem to be misunderstanding:
antisocial /ăn″tē-sō′shəl, ăn″tī-/
adjective
1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
2. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores.
3. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.
I am autistic and asocial fits more than anti-social because I am not actually doing any "anti" behavior, just trying to avoid the beurocratic small talk and general conformist interactions
This reminds me of an old Andy Warhol quote that I can't find now, to the effect that if you find yourself in a truly lousy situation, just pretend that you are in a movie.
- when all hope is lost in conversation, retreat into your self
I get a bunch of the others, but this one kind of confuses me. What's the opposite (better?) move? Logorrhea? Forcing a confrontation? Reciting bad poetry?
I suppose there's debate to be had about whether leaving a dead conversation is a retreat, but leaving the situation and pulling back a bit to think about the circumstances, one's mood, the people involved, etc seems like a good thing on balance.
I feel like this was a) written by someone on the spectrum, who b) worked really hard to learn to communicate effectively (great job!), and then c) dumped their original internal state in a blog assuming everyone else has their same challenges.
Just take their strongest point:
> dig in your heels when confronted with overwhelming dissent
A few months ago I watched a college-age people-pleaser assertively turn down three peers pressuring her to hang out after work somewhere she didn't want to go. Three! She stuck to her guns, then looked up and nodded to me. I subtly nodded back. Real cowboy shit.
People are different and follow different paths of growth.
Drama!
It's an interesting list, and yeah, I'd say most are common sense and well put. But I'm still a bit very of those "negative lists".
(I actually just found a webcomic which tries a similar approach - gives their characters intentionally the worst possible ways of interaction, with the "quest" of the story essentially being if they manage to grow and learn the right ones.)
But in both, its easy to employ "persuasive game" strategies and have the reader "discover truths" that are really colored by the author's perception.
Essentially, I'd like to know the context in which this was developed, so the whole list isn't just an instance of item #7 of it. Basically it reads as if someone could have written it in rage after some particularly bad conversation that didn't go their way.
The formatting here made it pretty hard to parse at first. For a good 10 seconds I genuinely thought I was looking at some bizarre run-on, non-sequitur sentences. Giving the main line items a bit more spacing would make it much easier to read.
> if you must ask questions, imply the correctness of your originally held position by wording your question suggestively
I don’t really understand this, what would an example look like?
(Cognitive behavioral therapy enjoyer l just cut off in traffic) Think positively. He is probably in a rush for a reason. Maybe he's late for a job interview. Maybe his wife is giving birth
Me: I'm da king of da highway
I think that a willingness to interpret this as (good) satire can be used to indicate one's own level of socialization especially in adversarial contexts.
I like most people as long as they leave me alone.
> exploit your immediate network;
Sorry, networks, in this context, are too social for me, as they involve other people.
I think this rather describes someone with a cognitive bias which can be cured rather than someone truly anti social (I know someone who I believe is anti social but they tick off a lot more boxes than this. There is an overlap for sure in what you described BUT its a lot more complex than this)
All over this thread people are saying things like, "this doesn't describe somebody who is anti-social, it describes a narcissist" or "I'm not anti-social, I am asocial." And it makes me think about internet discourse around neurodivergence and human diversity (not the racist dog whistle) more closely.
It seems that the models that dominate are ones which sort people into categories that emphasize positive traits and explain away negative ones as, "Society demands X but I just need Y." This is an important corrective to the medicalized model, but sometimes I feel it obscures the degree to which people are malleable. A lot of our behavior is habitual, and if you change your habits, you can change your "personality" without rewriting your own temperaments.
The other problem is one of causation. A group of people could all describe themselves as asocial, but what drives them to that label is entirely different. One legitimately needs less social interaction, one is riddled with social anxiety and has developed a deeply avoidant response, and one just hates people. They may be unified in feeling out of place in some social interactions, but what they need (or even don't need) is entirely different.
I don't know. I couldn't sleep last night and this is all I could think about. What does that make me?
Long story short: where I come from, alcohol is a main social driver. Once I stopped drinking, people started asking why I stopped, and some even suggested that people who do not drink are somehow less trustworthy.
Then after a sports incident, I got a concussion. For a while I could not handle light, screens, noise, people, work, or normal social pressure. So I deliberately isolated myself until I could figure out how to get better.
Here's my checklist:
- Know why you're doing this and share with a close person; Someone else grounding you in your asocial trip can make a difference;
- Read books, Jung helped me stay sane while in isolation;
- Learn a new skill. I picked math and system programming as I realized it's easier for me to solve math problems and debug computers, rather than humans;
- Assume your state of mind is temporary and you're doing it with a purpose;
You're on your own, ignore the environment, find happiness inside your mind, don't seek too much external validation. Then your body will tell you if it's time to socialize or keep on deliberately introverting. Happy meditation.
That's not being anti-social. That's just being hard headed. Anti-social isn't always a bad thing, while being hard headed generally isn't in one's best interest.
I thought this was going to be about moving to a car-centric suburb
> pivot conversations when someone challenges your assumptions or cites reasoning outside your wheelhouse
It’s curious how many people do this. Especially if you try to address their deeply-held beliefs, they’ll just start talking about something else.
This isn't a personality issue at all—it's pure disrespect. If someone treated me like that, I wouldn't befriend them or open up to them either. Sincerity is a two-way street.
Ha! I have been taking similar personal notes for writing a book.
I am picking up what this author is putting down.
I'm so asocial I enter every group encounter with a mental timer to see how long the conversation just pivots to talking about TV shows.
Assuming that everyone you meet is conspiring against you seems to be a pre-requisite to these. The feasibility of that is questionable.
The first 3 points are solid advice, but the rest read more like a guide on how to be successful in the work place in my experience.
This must be the Opus 4.7 constitution
a lot of these actually sound like good strategy for (upper) management, or those with executive aspirations (sadly).
I have a coworker who's clearly following this guide. So exhausting.
There are way more ways to be anti-social.
I got easier tip: bring large dog, that barks at everything and attack everyone 2 meters away. Bonus point if it has explosive diarrhoea in middle of grocery store or cafe!
Does kinda read like an engineer just had their 1st encounter with management.
This is one of my pet peeves. Not the "anti-social" character described in the post, but rather the poster's attitude. I've tried a few times to formulate to myself what it is that irks me, let's see if I manage to do it today:
1. Not every social interaction can (or should) be an objective weighing of ideas. It's not the other person's responsibility to enter into a formal debate with you at your local dive bar or whatever.
2. For their opinions to be valid, the other person doesn't need to conform to your idea of an acceptable conversation style (see 1). Also, in my experience, "anti-social" responses are detected more readily in the other person than in yourself, you're not as cool and collected as you think you are.
3. Feelings aren't forbidden. You may be a bit repressed yourself, meaning you feel shame or disgust when confronted with other people's feelings. Guess what... that's also a feeling!
4. If you repeatedly encounter these "anti-social" people in your life (which I guess OP does since he wrote a post about it) there's one common denominator: you. Can you honestly measure up to your own rules, OP? It takes two to tango.
5. There's a good chance you're sandbagging your conversation, meaning you're talking about some topic that you've thought about a lot, to a completely unprepared party. In my experience with people making complaints like OP, this is often combined with a controversial opinion about said topic. Instead of truly testing your idea against someone, you provoke an emotional reaction and celebrate your superiority because you staid calm and the other person exploded. Charlie Kirk was good at this unless he encountered actual experts.
6. Related to the above: come on, it's perfectly normal to get defensive and upset when you find you're losing an argument, don't act like you don't do it.
I spend 60 hours in solitude each weekend in silence, yet do none of these things?
some of these _are_ true _good_ advice for most ppl, beginner level as they may be, as by default they have been trained to be waaaaay too agreeable
This is soley a list of how to be explicitly negative internally and externally, the people in this thread equating it to disorders need to re-think the text. Its a list of what not to do as a human.
With respect to all; there is an incredible amount of subtle communications that go into standard conversations
Yeah that is triggering reading the list. I know it is satire or whatever. But people with one of those traits you need to evict from your circle or minimize contact with.
> when ambiguous, assume intent is malicious, ignorant, or amoral.
If you're in a toxic environment, this is what it's like. It's a culture problem, not an individual problem.
Here are some examples, going to get anecdotal here:
- People stealing credit for my work
- Needing to kick them off of projects I'm on to protect myself
- Getting into political standoffs with people trying to pressure and threaten me into arrangements that fuck me over
- Had people I work with turn on me all of a sudden and try to throw me under the bus
- A manager forcing someone to work with shitty consultants (who were, of course, a personal connection), then using it to throw them under the bus
- People trying to gatekeep higher ROI work for favorites
- Management lying to people and misrepresenting opportunities to get them to join, then rug pulling once they've signed on the dotted line
The "antisocial" behaviors in the post are just the sort of rational emotional detachment which happens when you figure out that you're dealing with shitty people.
Maybe I'll get genuinely antisocial here: a lot of people in general are shitty people. Or at least, if you've attracted shitty people into your life in the past, it'll keep happening in the future and you're better off growing the emotional scar tissue (i.e. "avoidant attachment") instead of this victim blaming. There's something about you that makes them target you and you're better off having the artillery ready
Morality trumps sociability, something piece doesn’t mention.
E.g. “ when ambiguous, assume intent is malicious, ignorant, or amoral”
Most immoral actors cloak deliberately cloak themselves in ambiguity.
How about the old fashioned freezing with a face contorted in fear like your being held at knife point unable to think of anything to say and just waiting to be able to leave? When you get asked a question, fumble over your words and say something stupid. Later on, you can reflexively watch the memory played over and over again so you're even worse the next time. If you see anyone you met during the encounter afterwards, you can just panic and try to hide your face and escape.
That's a lot easier and comes off more natural IMO.