Did you read my comment and comment I was responding to before writing yours? The parent complains that article listed things "act like wankers". Which clearly means "bad".
Second, I worked with people who had completely different hobbies and interests than I do. I am not always in dominant majority, with climbing in that team I was.
As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal.
Yes, I read the parent comment. I originally typed out in my previous post that I felt you may have missed the point of the article, but I felt that was too harsh. I don't think the main takeaway from the article should be certain things commonplace in tech culture are "bad" but how it can be alienating. To that point, both yours and the parent post seem overly concerned with the "bad vs. good" distinction. I do have some issues with the article, but I think alienating certain people (whether conscious or not) is something we should be concerned about.
Edit: it looks like you've edited your comment quite a bit since I first replied but I think there's another important clarification:
>As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal.
I'm not using "normative" to define "weird or not-weird" but rather commonplace. So regarding the article and your example, indoor climbing may be commonplace in your peer-group while still being non-normative in someone like the author's peer-group. Pile enough of these together and it's easy to see how one may begin to feel alienated.
1) talk about what you like, even if other people don’t connect well (be yourself at work?)
2) only like things other people connect with (seems limiting, but probably good for the social interactions)
3) pretend to like things others do and don’t talk about what you like (pretty much the definition of the conversationalist, but doing that all the time seems fake and probably unhealthy mentally for too long?)
4) never talk about anything controversial at all - aka the big Corp, how’s the weather answer.
You can’t be authentic AND make everyone happy. Literally impossible. If someone is alienated by someone talking about who they are, whose responsibility is that anyway?
I certainly wasn’t wealthy when I was growing up (or frankly had anything but hand me downs 90% of the time), but I still found ways to get out and do stuff I liked - salvaged old computers, went exploring in the desert, etc. it often meant not really connecting with mainstream folks (who were more interested in sports or the like), and I found it pretty alienating trying to have ‘small talk’ with 99% of the folks around me frankly.
Learning how to connect with them was a skill it took a lot of time and effort to hone - it would not have helped them or me to think they had a duty to not be who there were or care about anything but what they cared about IMO. Anymore than me any my stuff.
>Learning how to connect with them was a skill it took a lot of time and effort to hone
This was my main issue with the article. The author seemed so hyper-focused on the differences she saw day-to-day that she seemed unable to overcome them to find common ground to connect.
>You can’t be authentic AND make everyone happy. Literally impossible. If someone is alienated by someone talking about who they are
This isn't really what I was getting at though. To me, the issue isn't whether or not we can talk about or be our authentic selves, but more about creating a monolithic culture that has in-groups and out-groups. You can have a culture that is homogenous but still accepts those from the outside as equals. In that context, I don't think your assertions hold; you don't have to have the same interests to connect with people. For example, you can connect by being legitimately curious about differing interests as long as it's a culture that is open to different interests without using them as a defining characteristic. From the author's perspective, it seems like she still felt like an outsider. How much of that was in her own head stemming from insecurities about being poor, I don't know.
> you can connect by being legitimately curious about differing interests as long as it's a culture that is open to different interests without using them as a defining characteristic.
100% agree with that. Differences shouldn't make you exclude other people. Like the example where people just ignore the cleaning staff. It just tells alot how the people there are privileged. I worked at an engineering firm and people generally do acknowledge the cleaning staff. They're people too regardless of their position or work.
That’s because she WAS an outsider? Being welcomed doesn’t change that. The only thing that can change that is assimilation on a persons side combined with a willingness from the surrounding body to assimilate.
Even then, it’s usually easy to find areas where there are gaps, if you look.
People can, have, and will continue to form in and out groups. Calling out particularly problematic instances can help (and be necessary) but it’s never actually going away, anymore than crime, poverty, success, failure, etc. It’s a fundamental human (and other species) survival strategy required by and a byproduct of the world we are in.
This is true everywhere, about pretty much everything, and has pros and cons.
It doesn’t sound like they were doing anything particularly obnoxious, just not particularly awesome.
If you look for problems, you’ll find them. Most environments in my experience are a lot less welcoming than what she was describing. Each of these places I’ll note were very welcoming, and for every one of these items I’ve got 10 of people inviting me into their homes or spending time to get to know me and what my circumstances were like.
when I lived in Singapore for a bit, pretty much anyone over 30ish years old would stop and stare at me for minutes if I was outside a financial center. Any sort of discussion with older Chinese folks would inevitably end up with the word ‘Gwailo’ mixed in there somewhere. My first name was hard to pronounce for folks who speak Cantonese in particular, which didn’t help.
India, I’d get random scams directed my way because it seemed like they assumed I was a soft in the head westerner. Everything had a huge markup associated with it (white guy tax I heard a local friend call it). At least I knew enough to not push the cow away when I visited a local temple and one came up and started to sneeze on myself and a friend.
Munich Germany, while on a walk some folks got visibly angry (and one couple yelled at me) when they stopped me to ask me directions and I didn’t know German. I guess wearing a black t-shirt and jeans made them think I was lying to them or something? I don’t know enough German to know for sure what they said, but boy were they not happy.
Japan, I was always welcomed and everyone was very friendly - and very clear that I was not Japanese and needed my hand held at every step. Getting picked out of lines I was doing perfectly fine in so someone could give me hands on personal care was sometimes convenient, but it was clear that I was getting singled out. A friend of mine who lived there for many years and is married to a Japanese woman describes it as ‘you’ll always be treated like a drunk guest that drank too much, and needs help getting home safely’. He speaks fluent Japanese, is very familiar with all the customs, and has been married to his wife for over a decade and still gets the treatment.
Are these problems? I mean, I could write a book on each of those places and many more if that’s what I wanted to focus on. I could also write 10 on the positives each culture had, how much they welcomed me and supported me and others.
You’ve hit on my main qualms with the article that I’ve elaborated on elsewhere in this thread, namely that I think she came in with a self-fulfilling prophesy about being an outsider.
>That’s because she WAS an outsider
This is a bit in line with that same problem. Is she an outsider because she’s “poor”? Because she likes different hobbies? I’d like to think we should aspire to define our in-groups by less superficial means. I’m sure she could have been an “insider” if she (and others) didn’t define their tribes this way
Nod, for sure. Though I suspect not defining it this way is also a bit of a ‘don’t think of the purple elephant’ problem - just not how most (all?) people work.
We can aspire to do better, but that doesn’t mean others will agree that it is useful for them or a goal for them either.
> So regarding the article and your example, indoor climbing may be commonplace in your peer-group while still being non-normative in someone like the author's peer-group.
It was normative in that one team and is not normative in other groups I am member of. You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off.
That is just not the case. Climbing made me normative in that place. We talked about it a lot, note past tense. And in other places they talked about stuff that profoundly is not interesting or available ro me.
It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.
>You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off.
I made no such claims. I literally only used the sole example you used.
>It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. All I am stating is that if you find yourself in a fairly homogenous group that you don't necessarily fit in, it can be an alienating experience. My only other claim is that point seemed to fly by you because you were more concerned with things you're interested in, like indoor rock climbing, being painted as "bad".
>It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.
I’m not sure how you can have this takeaway. My point is literally the exact opposite idea about how homogeneous cultures can be alienating if we aren’t careful.
> because you were more concerned with things you're interested in, like indoor rock climbing, being painted as "bad"
I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to - the one that claimed article says those hobbies are bad. It does not sound terribly difficult to understand to me. I opposed characterization of article itself.
You are trying to explain to me something about alienation when people in the room dont have the same hobbies, which has nothing to do with my point.
>I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to
I know, and what I'm trying to point out is that it misses what I consider the larger point. Your point above is tantamount to a "they started it" defense. Both you and the person you are responding to can be simultaneously missing the bigger picture. I was deliberately responding to the child comment because it would address both the child and the parent. My point is that your comment (and the one you responded towards) is wrongly focused, which has very much to do with your point. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to see that perspective, even just to refute it, makes this dialogue tiresome. It would be like somebody writing an article about how a politician's rhetoric is divisive and somebody constantly defends it by saying it's eloquent...you can be "not-wrong" and still miss the point.
The word wanker in Australian English denotes a specific kind of negativity, attached to egotism and acting as though you're better than others. I shouldn't have used it on HN, as it's a poor choice of phrasing for an international audience.
As per [0], "the socially leveling term wanker ridicules a person who is pretentious and arrogant, thereby suggesting that humility, solidarity and being down-to-earth are highly valued qualities in Australian society." Vocally complaining about unbleached tampons and flying to Greece for one weekend are textbook wanker behaviour. I'm not sure of a good American English word to substitute.
Second, I worked with people who had completely different hobbies and interests than I do. I am not always in dominant majority, with climbing in that team I was.
As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal.