The author is projecting a lot into the hearts and minds of strangers, based on limited or indeed no interaction with them. These are not scientific observations in any sense. What does the author do to confirm or refute her psychological theories about others? She's very good at telling stories, but these stories feel like fiction, not hard fact.
I used to have similar concerns as you — how can anyone truly know what other people are like? Unless we’re doing research with the scientific method, we can only speculate unscientifically, right? Without science, what we say is just our belief, not established fact.
But how do you explain people who intuitively understand things? Mathematicians, for example, intuitively understand math. Psychologists and experienced authors intuitively understand people. We gain intuition through education and experience, which in turn improve our understanding and sensitivity towards the truth. Expert mathematicians, for example, _can_ have a good sense of whether a theorem is true before they prove it. And in general, people who possess scientific knowledge can intuitively know things.
I do agree with your intent, though — we need to possess humility about the accuracy of our beliefs. The author can’t factually know what other people feel and think without asking them.
But we also owe some deference to wisdom. Being wise is like being an expert darts players: you’re better able to throw darts into the bulls-eye than most people. If we develop a wisdom worth trusting, we should trust it.
I don’t think the author had a chance to interview each person they observed to see if their worried were right. That does not mean that they could not validate their observations.
You look at patterns and note them. Over years you will see similar patterns, both in people you only observe once, as well as people you get to know better. The ones you get to know better are the ones where you validate your theories. I’m not explaining it very well, but it works. It’s kind of like a sort of sparse sampling or a very long-term Monte Carlo simulation in n-dimensions (that’s an allusion and not a strict explanation)
Anyone who has had to learn social skills/cues as an adult, with analytical faculties in place of a more intuitive understanding, can attest to these seemingly universal patterns. People are ultimately more predictable than they believe themselves to be, and there are clear signs of a rich (evolutionary?) history of habit formation over many generations that in a real sense define "the human condition". One should consider themselves privileged not to have been forced to spend their cognitive efforts on understanding these patterns rather than merely be socialized into them.
I agree that repeated observation increases the confidence in a hypothesis.
But, only if it's a hypothesis that can be validated in such a way.
From OP
> By internal architecture, what I mean is, when someone talks to me, what I notice first are the supporting beams propping up their words: the cadence and tone and desire behind them. I hear if they are bored, fascinated, wanting validation or connection. I often feel like I can hear how much they like themselves.
The last part (how much they like themselves) is an interpretation or a causal speculation, and something very prone to confirmation bias.
Like, what kind of observed behavior would you make less confident in that?
The article is a mix of very good observations and some more speculative statements, which seems to trigger us, the HN commenter crowd :-)
Yeah a lot of those stood out like thorns to me cause I just don’t agree with her conclusions. Immediately set off some alarm bells i.e. that’s just, like, your opinion, man…
Feedback is better, but lack of confirmation didn't stop the Greeks from dreaming up a model of the atom...
From my own experience, with things to do with social interaction some of the most successful people forge on running purely on intuition, they don't burden their minds on things like worrying if their model of wisdom acquisition is deficient of a feedback loop
I have a friend who is a bit like the author here. He picks up on a lot of little things and seems to intuitively understand what those things mean.
For example, I invited him to a BBQ at my friend's parent's house. (He was my roommate at the time, and had met my other friend a few times so this was not a random thing)
He talked to my friend's mother for maybe 15 minutes at the BBQ. She is a cheerful and loopy sort of person, and that was exactly the sort of conversation they had. On the drive home he asked me, "that family has been through a lot of tragedy, haven't they?". Indeed, it would break your heart to hear about them.
In my experience, it comes down to matching patterns.
Here's what I think likely happened: your friend talked to other people who went through tragedy. He noticed something common in their behavior. It can be something so subtle that it's invisible to most people, but your friend notices these kind of things. Then when he talked to the current person, he found the similar pattern.
I believe that this comes from the exact opposite of what the author does. People like this can discard the irrelevant details, and find what can be put together to create a clear picture.
On key difference here is that those mathematician then go through the process of actually proving the theorem. Just having “an intuitive understanding” is never enough, no matter how many times you have been right before.
The author here does not go through that process at all. It just feels like saying: I watch people a lot so I feel like I know what I am talking about, I feel entitled to write a piece about it. Math people have those pieces peer reviewed and experimented upon before they are actually published.
Perhaps she talks to some people and learns something about their (self reported) life? I would imagine this is how these types of intuitions are formed?
> Psychologists and experienced authors intuitively understand people
I interacted with at least 7 psychotherapists (one of them is a relative) and a whole bunch of other specialists in the field. It took three decades and a push from my side for someone to even figure out that something about me was kind of strange.
Yes, experts can recognize patterns. But that has limits & biases, and tends to be unreliable for outliers. And when that person doesn't even check their results all bets are off.
I'm sorry to intrude, but this interests me very much. What was the thing that you wanted figured out about you that gave surch hard time for psychotherapists?
>Mathematicians, for example, intuitively understand math.
They can intuit all they want, and good for them if it makes them more efficient in their job. But at the end of the day, if you have to convince others of your intuitions you have to provide verifiable proof. Your intuition might help you overcome a hurdle when proving a theorem, but, still, prove it you must.
It doesn’t really have anything to do with HN. It’s anyone who cares about the truth.
Stuff that sounds believable because it “sounded good” and was argued by charismatic people plagued medicine until shockingly recently.
It’s human nature to believe people and your snarky reply is evidence of that. Your gut reaction should be to agree with the comment or call out the author for fabricating stuff, not to dismiss intellectual rigor.
From the author, it's a newsletter on what she's thinking. I didn't see any advertising of shoddy medicine or claims of being scientific. Do we call out authors for writing poetry on the human experience? Why should we apply intellectual rigor on some observations made by an artist?
"Two households, both alike in dignity," he says, with the confidence of a man who’s never run a census.
We are given no confidence interval, no error bars, not even a passing nod to the broader Veronese housing market. Two? Why not three? Why not seven?
Dignity, too, goes unmeasured. Are we talking patrician gravitas or the brittle self-importance of guys who name their swords? The line presumes a convenient symmetry where there is almost certainly chaos, over-leveraged family fortunes, and at least one uncle squatting in a basilica basement.
Frankly, I suspect "two households" is just the number Shakespeare could hold in his head without dropping his drink.
"call out" as a metaphor doesn't apply to the discussing of a online newsletter on a separate site; neither the author nor other readers are likely to be aware of the discussion. It does seem very apt, if poetry were posted here that makes claims about the human experience, for commenters to dispute those claims.
At the time of writing, three of the four existing replies showed no indication of understanding your point xweb; the fourth one having been made unavailable via flagging (but one can guess from context that it too didn't understand).
Please leave this gender war stuff to lesser mediums like X and Tiktok.
HN is following the standard principle that was true on the internet before pictographic avatars of real people became popular; that we are all who we choose to be online. “Nobody knows you are a dog” etc.
There are a few people who have tried to bring identity politics to HN over the years but it is unscientific to claim this bias without evidence regardless of anything else.
Interesting that you are critiquing a woman for making observations without evidence, then you yourself make an observation without evidence. It couldn't be a double standard, could it?
> it is unscientific to claim this bias without evidence
We have ample evidence that almost everyone is sexist. Assuming that this doesn't apply to people on Hacker News is rather odd.
Where did I say that the word "observation" was inappropriate? I'm certainly not denying that the author observed a bunch of people at weddings. My criticism is that these observations are insufficient to read accurately "into the hearts and minds of strangers".
Then what did your second sentence ["These are not scientific observations in any sense. What does the author do to confirm or refute her psychological theories about others?"] intend?
> She's very good at telling stories, but these stories feel like fiction, not hard fact.
There was no claim of objective fact. This is a Substack piece, not a peer-reviewed submission to "Nature" journal.
Sure, she's also just peering into a single night/moment of their life. She's watching group dynamics of people who are attending a wedding. As I read through all the bullets, I thought about how many of the weddings I have attended have gone and where she would have pegged me on those nights and I could probably fit half the list depending on which event she was present on.
People attend weddings for a lot of reasons. Sometimes it's full of your most favorite people in the world, sometimes you only know a few people in the room. Sometimes you have a lot of fun, sometimes the entire thing just feels like a massive inconvenience. Sometimes it stokes the flame of your relationship, sometimes it occurs during a time when your relationship is under some stress. Sometimes I'm dancing/partying all night, sometimes I never leave my table and leave before the cake is cut.
Anyways, I'm sure she does see a lot of these patterns and you can try to infer a lot of things about the people, with some reason, but people are fluid and this is too small of a sample of their life to really know anything other than how this group of people interacted on a single night of their lives.
Then again she is a painter whose job depends on literally observing the details and atmosphere and capturing not only the visual field but also the essence. So if not her, then who is better suited to make such observations.
I don’t think any of the things she said are deterministic or objectively descriptive. At the same time I think she does capture some essence or wisdom from her multitude of experience and her knack for noticing this and being able to put it into words.
> Then again she is a painter whose job depends on literally observing the details and atmosphere and capturing not only the visual field but also the essence. So if not her, then who is better suited to make such observations.
No, her job depends on making the married couple happy, which is not at all the same as 100% accurate representation.
Painting is not just capturing the pixels of light on canvas. This is what children consider painting. Great painters capture emotion and energy on canvas -- that's part of the essence that I am alluding to. That's what separates an artist who can realistically capture a scene from a master. Emotionally mature people who experienced life can recognize that emotion and energy in great paintings.
It's kind of like math. Some proofs and formulas are considered elegant or even beautiful. To the untrained eye they look like letters, symbols, and numbers.
Take Euler's identity: e^(i*π) - 1 = 0. My kids see gibberish, since they are in grade school. I see something surprising and neat but don't fully understand it. I've spoken to people who have a deeper understanding of math who can talk wonder about this simple-looking equation and use words of feeling to describe it.
Sure, the words she uses to represent her observations is a reflection of her self; in that she describes it in a more creatively descriptive way than, say, a scientist in a laboratory. It's observation, not research; but it's also not judgment which is where I find projection lives.
Under that I see someone whose job it is to be keenly observant and to notice these things, otherwise she wouldn't be a very good wedding painter. It probably helps that she seems to be passionate about observing people. Why have someone paint your wedding if the painter isn't able to understand and observe the nuances of human interactions going on?
I disagree. The observations start to become extremely judgmental at around #8 and following.
> Why have someone paint your wedding if the painter isn't able to understand and observe the nuances of human interactions going on?
Do you think the wedding painter is paid to reproduce the naked reality of the situation, if that happens to be contrary to what the couple wants to see and preserve on canvas forever?
Why does it have to be scientific? Lots of people write their thoughts on the world and the people in it. Why would a blog called “skin contact” need hard facts?
It doesn't. But that is the GPs own projection when encountering this OPs work. It's the modern abuse of the scientific to insulate yourself from all things you cannot do or do not understand, or don't wish to face.
Like someone evaluating literature as if it's an academic paper. Hilarious. Just ego protection from things you don't wish to face. Carpe Diem! not "Scientific Blinkers" sold on amazon, $1 for a 10-pack. Wear it and you'll never be awed again!
Worship an idol of false objectivity, and demonize the subjective - to hide, when objective and subjective are both seeing and making from different points of view. But those trapped objectifying the world - an authoritarian abuse of science when science is observation - you're only harming yourself, and trying to turn your dynamic human-ness into a fixed robot!
My use of "scientific" was partly a play on words, because it's a natural accompaniment to "observation". But note that I said "in any sense". We don't have to don lab coats and acquire lofty job titles to take a kind of scientific approach to our own beliefs. And formulating a personal "theory of mind" is indeed necessary to navigate the social world. The crucial part is this: "What does the author do to confirm or refute her psychological theories about others?"
Painting weddings presents good opportunities to observe the interactions of strangers. On the other hand, it does not present good opportunities to come to know strangers intimately, which is the only way to confirm or disconfirm your superficial observations of them. The wedding guests are unlikely to ever become the hired hand's close friend, lover, or relative. If the article author is somehow an expert at reading people, that expertise was assuredly not acquired by painting weddings. At best, preexisting expertise could be practiced there. Reading the author's list, however, I'm quite skeptical. She appears to be someone who is judgmental and jumps to unwarranted generalizations based on anecdotal evidence.
Most of us are pretty good at reading other people. That's natural, not magical. But pretty good is fallible at best, and overconfidence in our own abilities is another natural human trait. You can easily become overconfident by having a few lucky successes. The most troubling combination is overconfidence and charisma, which allows you to deceive not only yourself but many others.
> It is easy to spot the person in the room who thinks they are better than everyone. [...] This is also painful to see, because they often cannot see their own misery, how unpleasant the world is if no one is good enough to be loved.
Honestly, where does this person get off thinking they can evaluate a whole person's psyche based on how they walk into a room and chat with a few people?
I took a course on Freud in college, and what struck me at the time was that the framework of psychoanalysis seemed basically cruel, in that the analyst was free to say that either acceptance or rejection of their claims was evidence for them, and that it would be maddening to deal with that for any extended period of time.
I interpreted the “uninterested in giving … attention” part of that point a bit differently. To me, somebody avoiding socialising is not giving off a superiority complex. I suspect what the author meant is being inattentive while socialising (i.e., not actually listening to you, focusing the conversation on themselves, etc.)
The only way to validate such observations is to check if they have predictive power. I'm sure the author checked that to her satisfaction. You are free to do the same.
It’s fine to be non-rigorous as long as you’re not a jerk and treat your own conclusions on relatively little data as preliminary.
Sometimes it’s good to have some information with relatively large error bars and be willing to update quickly rather than ignore information because the error bars are large.
From the article it doesn’t become apparent that the author wouldn’t update her views quickly as new information comes in (eg by talking to someone).
So yes the observations in the post are not scientific, but there’s nothing preventing them from being the starting point of rational reasoning and behaviour.
Science isn't the only form of empiricism. In this case, the writer is reporting what she has learned through a long process of observation, a useful form of experience. No doubt in the process she has formed ideas, watched to see if they bear out, changed her mind, examined events in context and their outcomes, come up with generalizations based on observations over time, and so on. You know, how most people learn most things.
Could she be wrong, sure, but as we have learned over the past few years, so can more "scientific" approaches to psychology and sociology. But that doesn't really matter because what she's doing isn't failed science, but taking part in a sort of humanistic shared inquiry. It's a woman reporting her observations and thoughts, not as claimed facts, but as suggestions readers can integrate into their own developing understanding, so they can build on them to make their own observations and inferences.
Somehow I knew that a comment along these lines was coming. HN never disappoints when it comes time to be nauseatingly analytic. No amount of whimsy or attempt at writing anything approaching literature or something long-form go unanswered and uncriticized.
I wish I (and lots of others) had just half of the ability to see people the way that the author does, it would make the world so much more rich and maybe more kind.
"Fiction" doesn't seem to be the right word for open speculation positioned as open speculation, which is how I immediately evaluation observation.
think this is just an observational essay. The confident tone makes for better reading, even if you're questioning the accuracy while you read it. It also allows a more loving tone than a more hedged rhetoric would allow.
It seems entirely mean spirited here to expect some rigid scientific insight from a person recounting their observations about the world. Where does science begin if not with a story that wants verifying?
> These are not scientific observations in any sense.
This is... IMO, a misguided criticism. It implies every study of anything should be scientific. This is the road to bad science, pseudoscience and whatnot. In fact, it's the road we already have taken.
Psychology is full of dubious scientific pretense... often because art, anthropology, philosophy and such are derided and rejected as unscientific.
Give me great art or philosophy over bad science any day.
A nice example of this is Masamune Shirow, of Ghost in the Shell fame. If you go through the interviews, most of his inspiration comes from early scientific research and engineering debates that he internalized and integrated into a coherent and compelling vision of the future.
This is no small feat, he is extremely influential in that he exposed whole generations of people to these ideas and cutting edge research fields, and many researchers today probably chose their fields based on the ideas exposed in his art.
But did he get there before the researchers ? I'd say no. And he doesn't need to, what he did is incredible in other ways already.
PS: too many people assume that scientists or engineers don't have imagination nor project their ideas into the future. That would be misguided.
Did Arthur C Clark "beat the scientists" when he wrote about geosynchronous radio communication satellites in 1945? This was 12 years before humanity had launched _anything_ into orbit, and 20 years before we launched a communications satellite to geosync orbit.
Did he "get there before the researchers"? I'd say "that question makes no sense".
Mathematicians certainly "beat him" to the realization that orbital periods depend on distance, and could obviously range longer and shorter than 24 hours. Physicists certainly "beat him" to calculating the altitude of a 24 hour orbit of earth. Engineers almost certainly "beat him" to the idea of satellite radio communications.
This is kinda cheating though. Clark was a physicist as well as a fiction author. He even calculated the delta-v needed to launch to geosync orbit and compared it to the German V-2 rocket.
