Sharing as a person who has on occasion been sad and lonely.
Much like the difference between reading and writing, it’s very much possible to be skilled at understanding a social situation while at the same time having no clue how to respond appropriately.
For me, “reading the room” is easy. “Writing the room,” so to speak, on the other hand will probably remain a lifelong awkward learning experience, and I don’t think I’ll ever be “fluent” in it.
As is probably common, I did wonder if there’s something clinically wrong with me, but most screening tests I can find emphasize lack of understanding of social situations/facial expressions etc. which I’m just fine with.
Could it be that you hesitate to "write" because you've accurately "read" the room?
E.g. a toddler may find it easier to kick around a ball on a lawn vs. a kid kicking it around on a soccer field with boundaries, goal posts, and rules. To extend the analogy, everyone thinks the toddler is cute and doing a great job, but only the kid's parents think she's playing well.
I think it’s a skill that’s possible to get better at, but getting better at it requires some misery (trying, failing, being uncomfortable, making social mistakes)
Being able to read the social situation is a prerequisite so if you’re truly good at that then it’s possible to improve.
I think it’s a mixture of taking a genuine interest in other people, being good at story telling, and being able to gauge the interest of others in what you’re talking about. There’s also a lot to good delivery (part of good story telling) - watching good stand up comedy you can see this in action.
It also helps to be doing or learning things that make for good story telling too.
It feels like my mind got scanned. It is exactly the same in my case that I can read the room but I don't know how to behave or respond appropriately.
I keep evaluating lot of scenarios in my head when I'm in the room and try to find how the outcome of doing/saying that specific thing might be rather than doing/saying that thing and around half the time, the time of saying/doing that thing has passed before I could make the decision.
In my experience, people can over analyze and place too much emphasis on nonverbals like facial expressions. Ie it’s useful, sure, but don’t use nonverbals for the significant portion of your decision. That’s probably how you let prejudice into your actions.
I took it and got a 36/40. I have taken one intro to social psych course after taking gen psych.
"Fantastic! Your score was better than approximately 99.5% of other people's scores. You have the ability to accurately infer how most people feel, think, and behave in social context without a background or little background in social psychology. In a way, you seem to be very good at capturing human's 'social nature'. This skill, which we call social psychological skill, has been linked to intelligence, a willingness to engage in complex thinking, melancholy, and introversion."
I think some of the questions I remember learning about in psych 101, like the bystander effect, but the ones I was surprised that I had intuition for were the questions that asked about how other people deal with strong negative emotions and what works for coping.
I think it's interesting that the article frame this skill as something that people in positions of power need but at the same time being introverted to begin with means people are less likely to try to attain those kinds of positions. I wonder if it'll continue to be a weakness of current governance long term because people prefer extroverts in those positions.
I also think it's worth mentioning the book How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie as a way to become better at some of the things people in the comment section are bringing up as an area that needs improvement for them.
After finishing I couldn’t believe it. I thought maybe it was part of a larger experiment telling you what you want to hear. So I took the test again answering randomly and got a horrible score and 20th percentile. (ie it’s a real score)
So much of this seems so incredibly obvious to me! I mean I guess it make sense when you think about it. If it was obvious to most people, then most people would make better (less selfish, less bias) decisions which we see they don’t do.
Some that particularly struck me were the ones about group think. Like passing someone in the gutter, in-group validation, group enhancement of extremism etc. I always have an almost knee jerk reaction to go against the group in lots of situations (if there’s a large group of people walking in a certain direction; I’ll assume they’re all lost and make my own way for instance)
Explains a lot! Thanks for the link.
And here’s a fun experiment. If I call out how much of downvoting and upvoting on sites like here on HN are about group think, other biases, rather than based on the individual comment, I bet it’ll get downvoted (because of those same reasons)!
Having had no psychology course, books, or other education, I get a 35/40 (97.3%).
Most of these sundry facts I suspect I learned by osmosis after spending too much time on the internet — but I would never have called myself a natural psychologist, so I don't know how much predictive power this study really has =)
After the first few questions in that link, I decided to choose the most cynical answer instead of the one I thought was "correct". Apart from one or two, most had answers that I could classify as more cynical than the rest.
32/40.
I'm not sure what this says about me or the survey.
...Is the question corpus randomized? Why is nobody talking about this completely incomprehensible grapefruit question?
> Bob experiences numerous positive things when surrounded by a grapefruit. He wins a little money at the lottery, listens to his favorite music, and eats his favorite meal. Is it possible that Bob infers that he likes this particular grapefruit more than other grapefruits, because he has experienced all these positive feelings around this grapefruit?
I can kind of understand what it's asking, but this is worse on my brain than "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". It feels like I've stepped into a surrealist novella.
I feel like I spent an entire decade mostly in contemplative reflection and observation as I searched for intrinsic meaning and purpose.
I imagine many others who score well have some similar period they've been through where it almost feels like they spent more time observing themselves and others living than actually living.
Did anyone else do the optional survey at the end? It contains the following question:
> If you wanted to create a company that is fair in terms of hiring practices, what percent of each of the following groups of people would you hire? [...] Please make sure the amounts you enter add about to approximately 100%. (The groups are Hispanic, White, Asian, and Black.)
What are they trying to learn from this, and how are you supposed to answer it?
1. You can't intentionally hire percentages of employees by race because that's illegal.
2. How do I make the amounts add up to approximately 100%? They left out some of the larger demographics (indigenous, and arab/Middle-Eastern are both larger populations than Black or Hispanic in my country).
I got a pretty good score too (31/40, better than 81.9%). Though admittedly, while I have not studied university level social psychology I have read Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational [1], which covered many of the experiments presented in the quiz. It's an interesting and entertaining book, but it was a bit formulaic for my tastes, as every chapter tends to follow exactly the same structure. The experiments are presented well and are probably the best part of the book.
The bystander effect question that you mention was worded pretty poorly. The first sentence implied that the total probability is lower when there's more bystanders (which is definitely false in sufficiently large numbers), then in the second sentence their wording switches to marginal probability, which is correct. I of course knew what they meant, and answered correctly. But there were a handful of somewhat ambiguous questions like that. A handful I legitimately didn't know, such as whether people remember the last argument the best. 34/40.
Obviously I earned the grade I made in social psy course 30 years ago. Still not meeting the expectations.
On another note I passed a particularly bizarre question about x and y random groups and wanted to go back. Can’t do this, so I ended up taking the quiz over again and screen shot a few of my (least) favorite questions. And I noticed complete willingness to answer differently on some questions and confidently the same on others.
I wonder if I’m more concerned about this grapefruit that’s missing from my fruit bowl.
Not learned formally, and take with grains of uncertainty: 38/40 (which is also ~99.5% percentile). Some of the questions had very unclear framing though, so just picked the most likely choice to get through it fast. I guess the solitary type likes deeper thoughts and ponderings, rather than standard tests.
This is somewhat paradoxical, but I think leadership requires some level of delusion. If one truly sees things as they are, it’s hard to create narratives and mythologies requires to motivate/lead people.
Steve Jobs’ “reality distortion field” comes to
mind.
31/40 (81.9% percentile) here. Just for another data point. No background for me in psychology academically, but out of passion a little bit (eg: did read Thinking Fast and Slow).
36/40 never studied psych but have read a couple of books. This test seems too easy, though I'm a natural test taker and can usually tell what answers most tests want.
Fantastic! I am apparently a perceptive amateur sociologist despite disbelieving I had selected the 'appropriate' answers.
I am now convinced everyone gets this score, and the actual experiment is to test something else like extrinsic motivation to conform to an ideal, or suggestibility or something..
The questions are fairly complex, so I could easily see that people better at reading comprehension, and people who generally read more, will answer better.
Additionally, the correct answers maybe compromised, since social psychology is one of the worst offenders in the replication crisis.
This study isn't about the relationship in both directions. It's only really saying that lonely people might have a implicitly better understanding on the bigger trends that will face society. A total of six studies were examined.
You could say that an extrovert is someone who is more inclined or predisposed to seeing the good in others whereas someone who is "sad, lonely" is more predisposed to seeing the bad.
Reminds me of the film There Will Be Blood, where Daniel Plainview says something like "I can only see the bad in others" (not exact quote). It makes it hard for him to form long lasting relations with anyone, or a successor he can trust.
But as a somewhat neurotic introvert I can often understand that sentiment. It's like I'm preprogrammed to see the bad in people before the good.
This same author published a more questionable conclusion based on the quiz linked at the bottom of this original article. "Those with autism make good social psychologists"
The original article is pretty interesting but I don't understand how the author was able to make the jump from a short 40 question survey to positing about ASD. The optional questions at the end of the survey were about how you feel about shapes. I am surprised that this passes as meaningful evidence of anything.
> a new study by Yale psychologists found a surprising group of people are particularly good at accurately assessing truths about humans’ “social nature”
I am not a social psychologist (whatever authority that title may grant one), but I wonder about how one goes from a few conclusion that may hold true under certain conditions to "truth about human nature".
For instance, "Do people work harder in groups or as individuals? "
I could see peer pressure being a motivating factor to work harder as a group. Among highly accomplished and productive peers a new group member might strive to prove themselves by over contributing to the group. I would also expect cultural factors and (im)proper management to play a role.
"Do people work harder in groups or as individuals?" is not a yes/no question. It's a question they study, but they're not looking for a simple answer.
Whatever ‘human nature’ is, cultural and social layers make any answers rarely applicable to anything other than a relatively small universe of people, not universal truths.
“Do people work harder in groups or as individuals?” For example can be answered in one way or the other depending on social values, cultural traditions, and those even change thru time.
Ask your parents, ask younger generations, ask other ethnics groups or even ask yourself the same question in twenty years.
What is a social psychologist? Or, what is an asocial psychologist? Is it someone who's interested in people's psychology, but not in the people? What a term.
A social psychologist examines an individual in group dynamics and interpersonal relationships. It is still focused on the individual. Thing like personal prejudice, the sense of belonging, implicit bias, and effects of bullying are what social psychologist study.
On hacker news I expect the consequence of moving away from physical relationships to digital relationships, otaku, and parasocial relationships are pretty fascinating topics that fall under the research of social psychology.
It's different from sociology because it's focused on the individual. Sociology would instead be focused on the development of groups as a whole.
I am assuming by asocial you're referring to otaku as a concept and not someone's trauma response.
> Social psychology is the scientific study of how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, and implied presence of others, 'imagined' and 'implied presences' referring to the internalized social norms that humans are influenced by even when they are alone.[1]
> Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as being a result of the relationship between mental state and social situation, studying the conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur and how these variables influence social interactions.
> He stressed that individuals who scored high on tests about human nature do not possess the same knowledge and skills as trained social psychologists. However, he also noted that while “natural” social psychologists will not replace actual psychologists, they could be important players in the real world.
[+] [-] lovecg|4 years ago|reply
Much like the difference between reading and writing, it’s very much possible to be skilled at understanding a social situation while at the same time having no clue how to respond appropriately.
For me, “reading the room” is easy. “Writing the room,” so to speak, on the other hand will probably remain a lifelong awkward learning experience, and I don’t think I’ll ever be “fluent” in it.
As is probably common, I did wonder if there’s something clinically wrong with me, but most screening tests I can find emphasize lack of understanding of social situations/facial expressions etc. which I’m just fine with.
[+] [-] ultimoo|4 years ago|reply
E.g. a toddler may find it easier to kick around a ball on a lawn vs. a kid kicking it around on a soccer field with boundaries, goal posts, and rules. To extend the analogy, everyone thinks the toddler is cute and doing a great job, but only the kid's parents think she's playing well.
[+] [-] gonehome|4 years ago|reply
Being able to read the social situation is a prerequisite so if you’re truly good at that then it’s possible to improve.
I think it’s a mixture of taking a genuine interest in other people, being good at story telling, and being able to gauge the interest of others in what you’re talking about. There’s also a lot to good delivery (part of good story telling) - watching good stand up comedy you can see this in action.
It also helps to be doing or learning things that make for good story telling too.
[+] [-] Xplune13|4 years ago|reply
I keep evaluating lot of scenarios in my head when I'm in the room and try to find how the outcome of doing/saying that specific thing might be rather than doing/saying that thing and around half the time, the time of saying/doing that thing has passed before I could make the decision.
[+] [-] ianai|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knaik94|4 years ago|reply
https://yalesurvey.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XOUyQ4Ux6deFBH
I took it and got a 36/40. I have taken one intro to social psych course after taking gen psych.
"Fantastic! Your score was better than approximately 99.5% of other people's scores. You have the ability to accurately infer how most people feel, think, and behave in social context without a background or little background in social psychology. In a way, you seem to be very good at capturing human's 'social nature'. This skill, which we call social psychological skill, has been linked to intelligence, a willingness to engage in complex thinking, melancholy, and introversion."
I think some of the questions I remember learning about in psych 101, like the bystander effect, but the ones I was surprised that I had intuition for were the questions that asked about how other people deal with strong negative emotions and what works for coping.
I think it's interesting that the article frame this skill as something that people in positions of power need but at the same time being introverted to begin with means people are less likely to try to attain those kinds of positions. I wonder if it'll continue to be a weakness of current governance long term because people prefer extroverts in those positions.
I also think it's worth mentioning the book How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie as a way to become better at some of the things people in the comment section are bringing up as an area that needs improvement for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influen...
[+] [-] crazydoggers|4 years ago|reply
After finishing I couldn’t believe it. I thought maybe it was part of a larger experiment telling you what you want to hear. So I took the test again answering randomly and got a horrible score and 20th percentile. (ie it’s a real score)
So much of this seems so incredibly obvious to me! I mean I guess it make sense when you think about it. If it was obvious to most people, then most people would make better (less selfish, less bias) decisions which we see they don’t do.
Some that particularly struck me were the ones about group think. Like passing someone in the gutter, in-group validation, group enhancement of extremism etc. I always have an almost knee jerk reaction to go against the group in lots of situations (if there’s a large group of people walking in a certain direction; I’ll assume they’re all lost and make my own way for instance)
Explains a lot! Thanks for the link.
And here’s a fun experiment. If I call out how much of downvoting and upvoting on sites like here on HN are about group think, other biases, rather than based on the individual comment, I bet it’ll get downvoted (because of those same reasons)!
[+] [-] tux3|4 years ago|reply
Most of these sundry facts I suspect I learned by osmosis after spending too much time on the internet — but I would never have called myself a natural psychologist, so I don't know how much predictive power this study really has =)
[+] [-] raynr|4 years ago|reply
32/40.
I'm not sure what this says about me or the survey.
[+] [-] chadcmulligan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Twisol|4 years ago|reply
> Bob experiences numerous positive things when surrounded by a grapefruit. He wins a little money at the lottery, listens to his favorite music, and eats his favorite meal. Is it possible that Bob infers that he likes this particular grapefruit more than other grapefruits, because he has experienced all these positive feelings around this grapefruit?
I can kind of understand what it's asking, but this is worse on my brain than "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". It feels like I've stepped into a surrealist novella.
[+] [-] jodoherty|4 years ago|reply
I feel like I spent an entire decade mostly in contemplative reflection and observation as I searched for intrinsic meaning and purpose.
I imagine many others who score well have some similar period they've been through where it almost feels like they spent more time observing themselves and others living than actually living.
[+] [-] rogual|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nearbuy|4 years ago|reply
> If you wanted to create a company that is fair in terms of hiring practices, what percent of each of the following groups of people would you hire? [...] Please make sure the amounts you enter add about to approximately 100%. (The groups are Hispanic, White, Asian, and Black.)
What are they trying to learn from this, and how are you supposed to answer it?
1. You can't intentionally hire percentages of employees by race because that's illegal.
2. How do I make the amounts add up to approximately 100%? They left out some of the larger demographics (indigenous, and arab/Middle-Eastern are both larger populations than Black or Hispanic in my country).
[+] [-] paavohtl|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictably_Irrational
[+] [-] fighterpilot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xtiansimon|4 years ago|reply
On another note I passed a particularly bizarre question about x and y random groups and wanted to go back. Can’t do this, so I ended up taking the quiz over again and screen shot a few of my (least) favorite questions. And I noticed complete willingness to answer differently on some questions and confidently the same on others.
I wonder if I’m more concerned about this grapefruit that’s missing from my fruit bowl.
[+] [-] initplus|4 years ago|reply
I would be more interested to hear from commenters who got a poor score on the test.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 00deadbeef|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _y5hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gauravjain13|4 years ago|reply
Steve Jobs’ “reality distortion field” comes to mind.
[+] [-] rajnathani|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paperoli|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 99_00|4 years ago|reply
I'm naturally interested in psychology and pay attention to any media that discusses it stuff including popular books.
[+] [-] ggm|4 years ago|reply
I am now convinced everyone gets this score, and the actual experiment is to test something else like extrinsic motivation to conform to an ideal, or suggestibility or something..
[+] [-] Borrible|4 years ago|reply
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Just asking.
[+] [-] Isinlor|4 years ago|reply
Additionally, the correct answers maybe compromised, since social psychology is one of the worst offenders in the replication crisis.
[+] [-] knaik94|4 years ago|reply
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000...
[+] [-] mouzogu|4 years ago|reply
Reminds me of the film There Will Be Blood, where Daniel Plainview says something like "I can only see the bad in others" (not exact quote). It makes it hard for him to form long lasting relations with anyone, or a successor he can trust.
But as a somewhat neurotic introvert I can often understand that sentiment. It's like I'm preprogrammed to see the bad in people before the good.
[+] [-] knaik94|4 years ago|reply
https://news.yale.edu/2019/09/09/those-autism-make-good-soci...
The original article is pretty interesting but I don't understand how the author was able to make the jump from a short 40 question survey to positing about ASD. The optional questions at the end of the survey were about how you feel about shapes. I am surprised that this passes as meaningful evidence of anything.
[+] [-] pattusk|4 years ago|reply
I am not a social psychologist (whatever authority that title may grant one), but I wonder about how one goes from a few conclusion that may hold true under certain conditions to "truth about human nature".
For instance, "Do people work harder in groups or as individuals? "
I could see peer pressure being a motivating factor to work harder as a group. Among highly accomplished and productive peers a new group member might strive to prove themselves by over contributing to the group. I would also expect cultural factors and (im)proper management to play a role.
[+] [-] Arnt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robarr|4 years ago|reply
“Do people work harder in groups or as individuals?” For example can be answered in one way or the other depending on social values, cultural traditions, and those even change thru time.
Ask your parents, ask younger generations, ask other ethnics groups or even ask yourself the same question in twenty years.
[+] [-] Micoloth|4 years ago|reply
(not that they’d conduct a study, so it’s good to have scientific evidence)
[+] [-] midjji|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chadcmulligan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmos62|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knaik94|4 years ago|reply
On hacker news I expect the consequence of moving away from physical relationships to digital relationships, otaku, and parasocial relationships are pretty fascinating topics that fall under the research of social psychology.
It's different from sociology because it's focused on the individual. Sociology would instead be focused on the development of groups as a whole.
I am assuming by asocial you're referring to otaku as a concept and not someone's trauma response.
[+] [-] guerrilla|4 years ago|reply
> Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as being a result of the relationship between mental state and social situation, studying the conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur and how these variables influence social interactions.
[+] [-] npunt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autosharp|4 years ago|reply
> He stressed that individuals who scored high on tests about human nature do not possess the same knowledge and skills as trained social psychologists. However, he also noted that while “natural” social psychologists will not replace actual psychologists, they could be important players in the real world.
They have found a new class of humans?
[+] [-] guerrilla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tnzm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frizdabble|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cesarvarela|4 years ago|reply
I'm curious if there exists people getting scores of 20 or less, most answers are pretty obvious.
[+] [-] runawaybottle|4 years ago|reply