I am neurotypical in the sense that I’m not on the Asperger’s/autism spectrum at all. And I think, because I’m a woman, I’ve internalized a fair bit of social finesse/politeness/ways to signal deference and avoid ego challenges. Given that overestimating our own competence is a common bias, I’m hesitant to say “my social skills are good” or anything like that, but I can at least report that I don’t generally provoke hostility where I’m not anticipating it.
I agree that niceness is important, for all the reasons Alicorn has laid out. But I also agree with Alicorn and other commentators that the examples you give are off-putting. To me, they do not actually read as nice. They read as smarmy and condescending. At the same time, your advice: “Don’t just guess here. Try it out for a month. I think you’ll be amazed at how differently people react to you” is off-putting for its condescension. You are dismissing all your critics as not knowing what they’re talking about (“just guessing”), and implying that people react poorly to them now—or at least much more poorly than they react to you. In this way you’re implicitly claiming superior social status, which is ego-challenging behavior, and likely to provoke a hostile reaction.
So, like Alicorn etc, I agree with your premise but disagree with your suggestions for successful execution of the goal. Also, as others have pointed out, it’s important to tailor your style for the audience. The three examples of criticism which you brought up as overly blunt strike me as perfectly tailored to the audience—the first uses friendly humor, which is actually a great method of softening criticism, and the second two are direct and succinct without being hostile.
But I also agree with Alicorn and other commentators that the examples you give are off-putting. To me, they do not actually read as nice. They read as smarmy and condescending.
I can see how it’d look like that in the abstract, but in out in the world it really does seem to work. That’s the standard I’m using here—works-in-world.
Let me see if I can come up with a good real world example. Here’s one from Hacker News:
In response to someone saying Google Chrome has ugly design -
“I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. This is partly, I guess, because its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful, I think.”
That’s an example of what I mean. “I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think ” is filler. It doesn’t add anything, we already know it’s his opinion and it’s subjective. But if what if he’d been more blunt? What if he’d written -
“That’s weird. I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. Its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful. I don’t get how you could think otherwise.”
See that second one? I see the equivalent of that sometimes among smart people. And it’s bad. The first one—well, maybe it adds a little fluff. But it’s not going to make the person he’s replying to hostile. The second way would.
At the same time, your advice: “Don’t just guess here. Try it out for a month. I think you’ll be amazed at how differently people react to you” is off-putting for its condescension. You are dismissing all your critics as not knowing what they’re talking about (“just guessing”),
Well, again, context. That reply is to someone who is saying, “I don’t think that would work”—and I don’t know what to say other than, “Why not give it a try?” I’m advocating change in phrasing based on real world observations of what’s effective. If someone disagrees but has no data of trying it, I don’t know what else to say...
and implying that people react poorly to them now—or at least much more poorly than they react to you.
Ah, that’s not my intention at all. I know I used to do it the other way, and my results have gone up since I changed. Really, the counterarguments I’m seeing are exactly what I would have argued ten years ago, and I believe greatly held me back at the time. So I really, really, really would encourage someone to try a little softening and praise, even if it’s unnatural or doesn’t “seem right”—because it works in the real world.
Also, tangentially, it’s been kind of strange for me to have a discussion after writing a piece like this. Normally I’d start this comment with, “Thanks for the feedback, Siduri”—because I do appreciate it—but it’d feel kind of strange to do so now, and I’d fear coming across as insincere. So perhaps I’m going a little too far in the other direction now that that I’m self aware of the words I’m using? It’s a strange feeling for me, I’m kind of suppressing and editing out some polite/gracious things I’d normally use.
Anyway, that’s kind of meta. Thanks for the feedback. I don’t hold out myself out as an expert or a shining example of any good things—rather, I want to highlight an area that could lead to massive utility increase for people. To that end, I do encourage people to try it, even if it feels unnatural at first. (Maybe especially if that’s the case) In raw, abstract form it might not seem right, but I’ve had good results in a variety of situations since I moved in this direction.
I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless,
I find that really upsetting.
I’m just back from shopping at Lidl. Those yummy German chocolate coated marzipan bars are back for Christmas. Hurray! Should I get one for Robert too? No. He hates marzipan. He even cuts the marzipan out of the stollen and gives it to me.
When I read “I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless,...” I get the parental voice starting up: Why are you eating that crap, its mostly sugar, it will rot your teeth, I don’t care that you like it, you’re just being childish,.… The parental voice has a go at Robert too: What do you think you are doing cutting the marzipan out of the stollen. That is fussy beyond belief. Its just food. Eat it!. Everybody else likes it, what makes you so special?
Huh? What’s that all about? It is slowly dawning on me that I carry a lot of mental scar tissue from playing social games with people who play rough. In my experience minimising the importance of subjective factors is an aggressive move. It is made by a player to whom subjective factors are very important. They say “I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless,...” as a prelude to declaring that your subjective preferences are fairy meaningless. Having belittled subjective preferences, they impose theirs on every-one, and your objections carry little weight because “it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless.”
I’m very attached to, and defense about, the little areas of my life that are subjective. My taste in food, my taste in music, my taste in web-browser user interfaces. Being advised to apologise in advance for my “fairly meaningless” love of Chopin hits my hot button.
There had better be a more general point to this comment than “Alan likes marzipan.” I think it is that I am not unique; other people have issues too. Which means that there will always be problems with bits of harmless filler, inserted out of politeness, unexpectedly rubbing people the wrong way.
Given that both my comments in this thread have turned out more negative in tone than I intended, I should clarify that I think that lionhearted has written an excellence post. I have up-voted it. He deserves a medal for being brave enough to write on a fraught and important topic.
He deserves a medal for being brave enough to write on a fraught and important topic.
Fraught topic? The topic itself is utterly trivial and commonly acknowledged. Pretending that it is the topic itself that is dangerous is rather insulting to the community.
I can see how it’d look like that in the abstract, but in out in the world it really does seem to work. That’s the standard I’m using here—works-in-world.
But the commentators who are telling you “this doesn’t work for us” are part of the world. This conversation is part of the world. You’re getting commenters right now, in the world, telling you that you are provoking a hostile reaction when presumably you don’t mean to. So there’s something about your style that isn’t working right for at least a significant minority of the target audience.
I can imagine situations where the style you’re advocating or modeling here would work well. In a specific kind of corporate environment, it would work well.But in an intellectual discussion forum, I think it can have an effect opposite from the one you intend. That’s why you’re hearing from people saying that it’s “irritating” or “sets their teeth on edge” or that it’s coming across as condescending.
“That’s weird. I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. Its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful. I don’t get how you could think otherwise.” See that second one? I see the equivalent of that sometimes among smart people. And it’s bad.
Because of the final sentence, yes, that WOULD be likely to provoke a hostile reaction. Without that last bit it would be fine—a simple statement of personal preference, unlikely to cause any offense.
See, though, I stated up front that I believe in niceness. We don’t have any argument over whether niceness is better than rudeness: we have a difference in perception about what’s actually nice (and likely to make people react positively) and what’s condescending and/or dismissive (and likely to make people react poorly).
Also, tangentially, it’s been kind of strange for me to have a discussion after writing a piece like this.
It is odd, and meta, but also interesting, so thank you for starting the discussion—and for responding politely to criticism, which is always difficult.
“I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. This is partly, I guess, because its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful, I think.”
That’s an example of what I mean. “I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think ” is filler. It doesn’t add anything, we already know it’s his opinion and it’s subjective. But if what if he’d been more blunt? What if he’d written -
“That’s weird. I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. Its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful. I don’t get how you could think otherwise.”
Leave out the last sentence, and I would definitely respond to the second better than the first. Pointing out that one’s opinions are subjective is vacuous, it’s obvious enough that I’m inclined to think less of someone who bothers calling attention to it, and the “and therefore fairly meaningless” part makes it considerably worse. It’s way too self effacing, and triggers in me the kneejerk response “if it’s so meaningless, why bother bringing it up?”
Whenever I encounter someone prefacing a statement with “this is just my subjective opinion,” or some variation on that, it immediately causes me to revise my opinion of them downwards.
The examples you keep bringing up seem to be sledgehammer approaches to politeness. It’s better than sledgehammer rudeness, but it’s not well optimized for smoothing social interactions.
Why do you keep the hedge phrase “I think” in your improved version?
After all, “I think” is just as meaningless as the hedge phrases you remove: I already assumed that you think it, otherwise you wouldn’t have said it. So, if hedge phrases are bad, “Chrome is the most visually appealing...” would be even better.
Unless you agree that hedge phrases have some value, in which case this is much more of a “haggling over the price” sort of disagreement than it seemed at first.
I do agree that hedge phrases have some value. They have more or less use depending on the social circles you’re dealing with. Here, you could probably leave out the “I think” as implicit, but in many circles dropping it would be taken as abrasive and overprivileging of one’s opinion. Remember that there is no shortage of people to whom “other people don’t have to share your opinion” seems like a genuine insight.
I’m not taking issue with lionhearted’s general point that social signals that would seem fluffy in this community can be legitimately useful in many situations, but like many others in this thread, I question his grasp of what sort of signaling actually tends to be most effective.
An introductory phrase need not be a ‘hedge phrase’ in the sense of demoting the following statement—it can just serve to position it properly.
I find a good medium to be ‘I find’, or ‘It strikes me’, or ‘It occurs to me’, depending on context. These are clearly indications of subjectivity without denigrating subjectivity.
“I find Chrome to be the most visually appealing…” is not confrontational at all, and in terms of added length it’s 3 short words (‘I find’, and using ‘to be’ instead of ‘is’), barely a cost at all.
It doesn’t bring up the fact/opinion divide, it just uses it.
It seems we understand ‘hedge phrase’ somewhat differently, but I certainly agree that adding phrases that convert what would otherwise be a statement about the world (e.g. “Chrome is the most etc.”) into a statement about my own thoughts, feelings or experiences (e.g., “I think Chrome is...” or “I find Chrome to be...” or “In my experience Chrome is...” or whatever) makes the statement seem less confrontational, and that the difference in statement length is negligible.
In my more pedantic youth, I entertained myself endlessly by playing this game when people tried to ask me for the time.
“Do you have the time?” “Yes.” ”Will you tell me the time?” “It depends.” ”On what?” “Whether you ask me.” (sigh) “All right, then, will you tell me the time?!?” ”As I say: it depends!”
It astonished me how difficult it was for people to forego polite indirection.
Whenever I encounter someone prefacing a statement with “this is just my subjective opinion,” or some variation on that, it immediately causes me to revise my opinion of them downwards.
I agree that it sounds lame. But couldn’t there be a variation that makes them look cool?
“While it could be argued that all such opinions are subjective, my personal opinion is definitely X.”
I think a simple “in my opinion” serves better. All opinions are subjective, otherwise they wouldn’t be opinions, and it comes across as passive and weasel-wordy.
There are variations that can improve on the basic “in my opinion” disclaimer, but they’re situation appropriate. For instance, you might use “In my objective and incontestable opinion,” which is clearly facetious, and signals a deliberate reaction to overly self effacing disclaimers, but it won’t earn you points in circles where self aggrandizing humor is frowned upon.
I’ve met people who get huffy about the suggestion that they preface their opinions with “in my opinion” or “I think that.” For a long time I had trouble explaining what good came of doing so; the best I’ve got so far is “it distinguishes you from the people who think their opinions are facts.” Does this make sense? Any suggestions for making it clearer?
Edit: I just found a couple more ways to explain this in my notes file. One is that “x is bad” invites the conversation “no it’s not!” “yes it is!” (because it’s a disagreement of fact) whereas “I think x is bad” invites the conversation “why do you think that?” (because it’s a disagreement of opinion). The second argument is more interesting. Another is that when you say “x is bad” as an absolute, you’re implying that anyone who likes it is wrong; you’re insulting their taste. When you say “I don’t like x” you’re merely disagreeing with their taste.
I haven’t yet figured out to do with people who actually do believe that their opinions or experiences represent objective truths.
That reply is to someone who is saying, “I don’t think that would work”—and I don’t know what to say other than, “Why not give it a try?” I’m advocating change in phrasing based on real world observations of what’s effective. If someone disagrees but has no data of trying it, I don’t know what else to say...
I understand the difficulty in finding more evidence for this sort of thing. Once could do a study, and that’s not a bad idea, but right now I can’t think of any. I suspect what you need to do is not say “for a month.” These types of things tend to give immediate feedback if you’re interacting in person and paying attention, so trying it “the next time you’re dealing with non-nerds.” I know that most of my social experiments get a sample size of one and I suspect that is typical.
I am neurotypical in the sense that I’m not on the Asperger’s/autism spectrum at all. And I think, because I’m a woman, I’ve internalized a fair bit of social finesse/politeness/ways to signal deference and avoid ego challenges. Given that overestimating our own competence is a common bias, I’m hesitant to say “my social skills are good” or anything like that, but I can at least report that I don’t generally provoke hostility where I’m not anticipating it.
I agree that niceness is important, for all the reasons Alicorn has laid out. But I also agree with Alicorn and other commentators that the examples you give are off-putting. To me, they do not actually read as nice. They read as smarmy and condescending. At the same time, your advice: “Don’t just guess here. Try it out for a month. I think you’ll be amazed at how differently people react to you” is off-putting for its condescension. You are dismissing all your critics as not knowing what they’re talking about (“just guessing”), and implying that people react poorly to them now—or at least much more poorly than they react to you. In this way you’re implicitly claiming superior social status, which is ego-challenging behavior, and likely to provoke a hostile reaction.
So, like Alicorn etc, I agree with your premise but disagree with your suggestions for successful execution of the goal. Also, as others have pointed out, it’s important to tailor your style for the audience. The three examples of criticism which you brought up as overly blunt strike me as perfectly tailored to the audience—the first uses friendly humor, which is actually a great method of softening criticism, and the second two are direct and succinct without being hostile.
I can see how it’d look like that in the abstract, but in out in the world it really does seem to work. That’s the standard I’m using here—works-in-world.
Let me see if I can come up with a good real world example. Here’s one from Hacker News:
In response to someone saying Google Chrome has ugly design -
“I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. This is partly, I guess, because its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful, I think.”
That’s an example of what I mean. “I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think ” is filler. It doesn’t add anything, we already know it’s his opinion and it’s subjective. But if what if he’d been more blunt? What if he’d written -
“That’s weird. I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. Its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful. I don’t get how you could think otherwise.”
See that second one? I see the equivalent of that sometimes among smart people. And it’s bad. The first one—well, maybe it adds a little fluff. But it’s not going to make the person he’s replying to hostile. The second way would.
Well, again, context. That reply is to someone who is saying, “I don’t think that would work”—and I don’t know what to say other than, “Why not give it a try?” I’m advocating change in phrasing based on real world observations of what’s effective. If someone disagrees but has no data of trying it, I don’t know what else to say...
Ah, that’s not my intention at all. I know I used to do it the other way, and my results have gone up since I changed. Really, the counterarguments I’m seeing are exactly what I would have argued ten years ago, and I believe greatly held me back at the time. So I really, really, really would encourage someone to try a little softening and praise, even if it’s unnatural or doesn’t “seem right”—because it works in the real world.
Also, tangentially, it’s been kind of strange for me to have a discussion after writing a piece like this. Normally I’d start this comment with, “Thanks for the feedback, Siduri”—because I do appreciate it—but it’d feel kind of strange to do so now, and I’d fear coming across as insincere. So perhaps I’m going a little too far in the other direction now that that I’m self aware of the words I’m using? It’s a strange feeling for me, I’m kind of suppressing and editing out some polite/gracious things I’d normally use.
Anyway, that’s kind of meta. Thanks for the feedback. I don’t hold out myself out as an expert or a shining example of any good things—rather, I want to highlight an area that could lead to massive utility increase for people. To that end, I do encourage people to try it, even if it feels unnatural at first. (Maybe especially if that’s the case) In raw, abstract form it might not seem right, but I’ve had good results in a variety of situations since I moved in this direction.
I find that really upsetting.
I’m just back from shopping at Lidl. Those yummy German chocolate coated marzipan bars are back for Christmas. Hurray! Should I get one for Robert too? No. He hates marzipan. He even cuts the marzipan out of the stollen and gives it to me.
When I read “I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless,...” I get the parental voice starting up: Why are you eating that crap, its mostly sugar, it will rot your teeth, I don’t care that you like it, you’re just being childish,.… The parental voice has a go at Robert too: What do you think you are doing cutting the marzipan out of the stollen. That is fussy beyond belief. Its just food. Eat it!. Everybody else likes it, what makes you so special?
Huh? What’s that all about? It is slowly dawning on me that I carry a lot of mental scar tissue from playing social games with people who play rough. In my experience minimising the importance of subjective factors is an aggressive move. It is made by a player to whom subjective factors are very important. They say “I guess it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless,...” as a prelude to declaring that your subjective preferences are fairy meaningless. Having belittled subjective preferences, they impose theirs on every-one, and your objections carry little weight because “it’s totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless.”
I’m very attached to, and defense about, the little areas of my life that are subjective. My taste in food, my taste in music, my taste in web-browser user interfaces. Being advised to apologise in advance for my “fairly meaningless” love of Chopin hits my hot button.
There had better be a more general point to this comment than “Alan likes marzipan.” I think it is that I am not unique; other people have issues too. Which means that there will always be problems with bits of harmless filler, inserted out of politeness, unexpectedly rubbing people the wrong way.
Given that both my comments in this thread have turned out more negative in tone than I intended, I should clarify that I think that lionhearted has written an excellence post. I have up-voted it. He deserves a medal for being brave enough to write on a fraught and important topic.
Fraught topic? The topic itself is utterly trivial and commonly acknowledged. Pretending that it is the topic itself that is dangerous is rather insulting to the community.
But the commentators who are telling you “this doesn’t work for us” are part of the world. This conversation is part of the world. You’re getting commenters right now, in the world, telling you that you are provoking a hostile reaction when presumably you don’t mean to. So there’s something about your style that isn’t working right for at least a significant minority of the target audience.
I can imagine situations where the style you’re advocating or modeling here would work well. In a specific kind of corporate environment, it would work well.But in an intellectual discussion forum, I think it can have an effect opposite from the one you intend. That’s why you’re hearing from people saying that it’s “irritating” or “sets their teeth on edge” or that it’s coming across as condescending.
Because of the final sentence, yes, that WOULD be likely to provoke a hostile reaction. Without that last bit it would be fine—a simple statement of personal preference, unlikely to cause any offense.
See, though, I stated up front that I believe in niceness. We don’t have any argument over whether niceness is better than rudeness: we have a difference in perception about what’s actually nice (and likely to make people react positively) and what’s condescending and/or dismissive (and likely to make people react poorly).
It is odd, and meta, but also interesting, so thank you for starting the discussion—and for responding politely to criticism, which is always difficult.
Leave out the last sentence, and I would definitely respond to the second better than the first. Pointing out that one’s opinions are subjective is vacuous, it’s obvious enough that I’m inclined to think less of someone who bothers calling attention to it, and the “and therefore fairly meaningless” part makes it considerably worse. It’s way too self effacing, and triggers in me the kneejerk response “if it’s so meaningless, why bother bringing it up?”
Whenever I encounter someone prefacing a statement with “this is just my subjective opinion,” or some variation on that, it immediately causes me to revise my opinion of them downwards.
The examples you keep bringing up seem to be sledgehammer approaches to politeness. It’s better than sledgehammer rudeness, but it’s not well optimized for smoothing social interactions.
Why do you keep the hedge phrase “I think” in your improved version?
After all, “I think” is just as meaningless as the hedge phrases you remove: I already assumed that you think it, otherwise you wouldn’t have said it. So, if hedge phrases are bad, “Chrome is the most visually appealing...” would be even better.
Unless you agree that hedge phrases have some value, in which case this is much more of a “haggling over the price” sort of disagreement than it seemed at first.
I do agree that hedge phrases have some value. They have more or less use depending on the social circles you’re dealing with. Here, you could probably leave out the “I think” as implicit, but in many circles dropping it would be taken as abrasive and overprivileging of one’s opinion. Remember that there is no shortage of people to whom “other people don’t have to share your opinion” seems like a genuine insight.
I’m not taking issue with lionhearted’s general point that social signals that would seem fluffy in this community can be legitimately useful in many situations, but like many others in this thread, I question his grasp of what sort of signaling actually tends to be most effective.
An introductory phrase need not be a ‘hedge phrase’ in the sense of demoting the following statement—it can just serve to position it properly.
I find a good medium to be ‘I find’, or ‘It strikes me’, or ‘It occurs to me’, depending on context. These are clearly indications of subjectivity without denigrating subjectivity.
“I find Chrome to be the most visually appealing…” is not confrontational at all, and in terms of added length it’s 3 short words (‘I find’, and using ‘to be’ instead of ‘is’), barely a cost at all.
It doesn’t bring up the fact/opinion divide, it just uses it.
It seems we understand ‘hedge phrase’ somewhat differently, but I certainly agree that adding phrases that convert what would otherwise be a statement about the world (e.g. “Chrome is the most etc.”) into a statement about my own thoughts, feelings or experiences (e.g., “I think Chrome is...” or “I find Chrome to be...” or “In my experience Chrome is...” or whatever) makes the statement seem less confrontational, and that the difference in statement length is negligible.
“It would be great if you could pass the salt.”
“There is no objective criteria by which it could be ‘great’ if - ”
“I would appreciate it if you would pass the salt.”
“If you think so, then it’s probably true, although there are limits to introspection - ”
“Trust me.”
″ - but even granting that, that’s really a lame counterfactual scenario to raise - ”
“Salt motherfucker. Can you pass it?!”
“I can.”
(A short interval of time elapses. Salt is not passed.)
“Pass the salt!”
In my more pedantic youth, I entertained myself endlessly by playing this game when people tried to ask me for the time.
“Do you have the time?”
“Yes.”
”Will you tell me the time?”
“It depends.”
”On what?”
“Whether you ask me.”
(sigh) “All right, then, will you tell me the time?!?”
”As I say: it depends!”
It astonished me how difficult it was for people to forego polite indirection.
“What time is it?!”
“It’s five o’clock somewhere.”
I agree that it sounds lame. But couldn’t there be a variation that makes them look cool?
“While it could be argued that all such opinions are subjective, my personal opinion is definitely X.”
I think a simple “in my opinion” serves better. All opinions are subjective, otherwise they wouldn’t be opinions, and it comes across as passive and weasel-wordy.
There are variations that can improve on the basic “in my opinion” disclaimer, but they’re situation appropriate. For instance, you might use “In my objective and incontestable opinion,” which is clearly facetious, and signals a deliberate reaction to overly self effacing disclaimers, but it won’t earn you points in circles where self aggrandizing humor is frowned upon.
I’ve met people who get huffy about the suggestion that they preface their opinions with “in my opinion” or “I think that.” For a long time I had trouble explaining what good came of doing so; the best I’ve got so far is “it distinguishes you from the people who think their opinions are facts.” Does this make sense? Any suggestions for making it clearer?
Edit: I just found a couple more ways to explain this in my notes file. One is that “x is bad” invites the conversation “no it’s not!” “yes it is!” (because it’s a disagreement of fact) whereas “I think x is bad” invites the conversation “why do you think that?” (because it’s a disagreement of opinion). The second argument is more interesting. Another is that when you say “x is bad” as an absolute, you’re implying that anyone who likes it is wrong; you’re insulting their taste. When you say “I don’t like x” you’re merely disagreeing with their taste.
I haven’t yet figured out to do with people who actually do believe that their opinions or experiences represent objective truths.
I understand the difficulty in finding more evidence for this sort of thing. Once could do a study, and that’s not a bad idea, but right now I can’t think of any. I suspect what you need to do is not say “for a month.” These types of things tend to give immediate feedback if you’re interacting in person and paying attention, so trying it “the next time you’re dealing with non-nerds.” I know that most of my social experiments get a sample size of one and I suspect that is typical.