465
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by zloubida@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

It's under a paywall for some, so here's the archived version.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

But you know there's a chance that they're bothered by you, that they're stuck in the situation and you still carry on with trying to connect with them. What wording would you use for the situation?

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I like to think of it as giving people an opening.

Make a comment or two that invites discussion. If it takes, great. Maybe chat for a minute, maybe for a while.

If not, oh well, better luck next time.

Wo is interested and who is not is extremely easy to discern, in my opinion. The fact that you clearly think otherwise is not surprising, but I do think it’s easier than you give it credit for.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

A lot of people pretend so as not to seem rude. Also you never know how the other person will react otherwise.

I know you find enjoyment in it, I'm just saying that planes and such places where people are stuck with you are pretty risky.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

And I will respectfully point out that you seem to be arguing entirely from vibes and anecdotes.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

You agreed that you never know how the situation goes. And I'm guessing we agree that people are stuck in planes. So why risk it, if you're going to potentially be making the situation suck for the other person, I'm wondering

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

why risk it?

Because there’s almost no risk involved.

So why risk it, if you're going to potentially be making the situation suck for the other person, I'm wondering

Answers to this question, and more, are provided in some of the links provided.

The chances of making “the situation suck” are exceedingly small. The chances it “goes well” are quite high. A couple friendly words between strangers. A story to tell later.

Of particular note

His curiosity led to a series of experimentsrevealing that train and bus commuters who interacted with other passengers experienced a more pleasant ride — even when they believed they would prefer the solitude of, say, reading a book.

It is fear that the person sitting next to us won't enjoy talking to us that makes us keep to ourselves, Epley found. But when we do talk to each other, those social interactions with strangers tend to be both less awkward and more enjoyable than most people predict.

You seem to completely discount this possibility, while simultaneously overblowing the risk.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It just seems a bit selfish to try and "connect" in a sotuation where they can't leave. I get that it is your thing but at least on a plane it would be bettee to just chill for the duration of it. After all nothing negative about that, they might try to connect with you if they're up for it

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

There may be a selfish component to it. Doesn’t make it a selfish act.

I get that it’s your thing

It’s my thing after I read a few of these papers (you can find the links, and read them if you like, they’re in my other comments) and started giving it a shot.

it would be bettee to just chill for the duration of it.

Yes, you have made it very clear that for you, you believe that this is the case.

The data show that a lot of people feel this way before they try it, but are pleasantly surprised after.

After all nothing negative about that, they might try to connect with you if they're up for it

Nothing negative about what? “Being chill?” I think you’ll find that I’m pretty chill.

You seem to think I’m nagging them for the duration, but as I’ve explained, it’s really more of creating an opening.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

You won't cause anything negative by just chilling during the flight. Meanwhile, by trying to connect, you might make someone's travel worse. So if you value the fellow passengers, best move is not to risk it, at least not on the plane. Otherwise you're just gambling with their mood, which seems a bit shitty.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

So if you value the fellow passengers, best move is not to risk it

There’s a lot of big assumptions built into how you think about risk if the only possible outcomes you can conceive of are negative.

at least not on the plane

Oh yes the plane. Because of the implication, right?

I just feel bad that your outlook is so sad for all of this.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

Well you won't negatively affect them by not interacting with them. They are still free to talk to you, after all. The implication is a good one because they don't know what sort of creep or angry person you might be and how you would react to rejection. You're almost insisting on talking to the people on a situation you know might negatively affect them and where they are stuck in the situation and that just seems odd.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I feel like you’re just reiterating your last comment as though you didn’t read mine.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

You havent really addressed it propeely imo. I just don't understand the mindset.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Would you care to address any of the articles with research and numbers that I claim back me up?

I see you don’t understand the mindset. I don’t believe you are trying to.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

I don't get how the articles "back you up" in this point

You're almost insisting on talking to the people on a situation you know might negatively affect them and where they are stuck in the situation and that just seems odd.

What do the articles have to do with that?

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

That’s because you haven’t read them.

They have to do with the positive outcomes, which you continue to ignore, or treat as inconsequential.

A small chance of a negative outcome does not generally outweigh a good chance of a positive outcome.

youre almost insisting on talking

You insist on mischaracterizing my position. Asking somebody a question ir two is hardly as insisant as you keep making it out to be.

and that just seems odd

To you

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 23 hours ago

So you're just gambling on their feelings, did I understand that correctly?

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

I suppose so.

And you have no notion about gambling theory or risk reward whatsoever? Am I inferring that correctly?

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 22 hours ago

I don't want to make anyone's day worse. Gambling on someone else's feelings just seems icky to me.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

That’s because you ignore the possibility of a good thing happening, and/ or dramatically overstate the risks of it making somebody’s day worse.

Let’s start with a silly example. Let’s say you had $1000 in your favorite currency. It was given to you with the purpose of you giving it to somebody else. If you do not give it to them, the money disappears.

Would you give this money away? What if I told you there was a 1% chance that it would make a persons day worse?

If you’re not giving the money away, then at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

If you are, what about $100? What about 10$?

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 22 hours ago

I'm not ignoring possibility of good things. I just don't think it's worth gambling that there's a negative outcome. If you don't do anything it won't cause anything negative and they're still free ro talk to you. I just wouldn't want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

So you won’t even engage with my silly hypothetical?

If you don’t think that any amount of “gambling” is worth even the smallest amount of risk, regardless of the possible reward, then I think you are arguing from an indefensible position.

if you don’t do anything it won’t cause anything negative and they’re still free eo talk to you

Are they? They’re not bound be the same constraints as I should be? It’s a risk they should be willing to take?

I just wouldn't want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.

You’re mischaracterizing things again. I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.

You seem to think that both the odds and the severity of a bad outcome are so serious, that the positive outcomes shouldn’t even be considered. Despite a solid day of this conversation, you have only vaguely pointed in the direction of what these bad outcomes look like, or how likely you think they are.

I can infer that you believe it to be extremely likely and extremely serious. I can point back at some of the data which interestingly seems to have failed to capture such a scenario, but it’s still not clear to me that you’ve bothered to read any of the links with studies I’ve provided.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 19 hours ago

It's like gambling on someone else's money. You could do nothing and the situation stays the same, or you could run the risk of losing their money. You feel the odds are good so you go for it, I would feel shit about losing their money just because I wanted to gamble so I don't do it. And they can gamble on their own too if they want to, it's not like by not gambling on their behalf you're preventing them from gambling.

I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.

You're describing gambling...

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I would feel shit about losing their money just because I wanted to gamble so I don't do it.

You would feel like shit if you lost somebody a dollar? How about one cent? Even if there was a 1/1000 chance? Even if they stood to win life changing money on the other 999/1000? Do you think they would be upset?

Is no amount of loss worth any amount of win? If that’s your position, then how do you even get up in the morning? Why is this situation so different at the bar? Likelihood of things going badly in a bar are far far higher in my estimation.

you’re describing gambling

I’m describing basically every choice you ever have to make in terms of gambling, yes.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

I wouldn't gamble on someone else's money since it is not my money to gamble on. It should be up to them imo.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Ok then how about it’s no money, but they have to hear about how they didn’t get the money, and so they feel kinda bummed out, if they don’t win.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

But that's not how it would go in a situation where you just don't make conversation. Or are you thinking they really want to have a conversation with you and are just thinking "oh gosh I'm so bummed that random person didn't talk to me"? I don't understand

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Your position seems to be that there is no risk so small that it wouldn’t override a potential win.

I am trying to point out the absurdity of this position.

If you can’t see the absurdity of this position, even with the silly parameters on it, then I’ll just ask this direct question:

How do you justify ever talking to a stranger? Surely the risk of a negative outcome is just too great, because there will always be some risk.

If this is not your position; state your position in similar terms.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I generally don't chitchat with strangers. It doesn't cost anything in that situation not to talk, there's no negative to it.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

generally don't chitchat with strangers.

Except on the internet.

It doesn't cost anything in that situation not to talk, there's no negative to it.

There is opportunity cost.

But just to be clear, your position is “don’t be the first one talking if talking to strangers, unless absolutely necessary, it’s too risky.”?

If this is not your position, please state it again, because this is how I read the comment I’m replying to.

In either case, please state what you think “the negative” that you are risking, or risking for a person on their behalf.

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025
465 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

76230 readers
2703 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS