Jump to content

Can you tell you're going to like someone...


Recommended Posts

I used to use a football chat room years ago, quite a few of us met up several times, and for the large part each one was as I'd expected them to be. And most of us have remained good friends and keep in touch regulary. No matter how hard you try if you're not being yourself online, you will be caught out in time. If you use the same forum/chatroom for years you just couldnt be that consistent.

I havent met anyone off here, but after nearly 5 years I'd say I have a pretty good idea of who I'd get along with in 'real life' And I have my favourites too ;) You can just tell who the decent people are.

 

 

Do you feel that is a low or high expectation?

 

an inbetweeny one :icon_lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Clearly angling for a Stevie Night.

 

This is what I'd be hoping for too......if theres one getting organised I'm definetly up for it as I want to see him call me a "cunt" to my face :icon_lol:

 

Thats the thing about him in regards to this thread.....he cant possibly spek to people like he did on here in real life...if he does I imagine he'd be turn up in a similar state to Steven Hawking ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly angling for a Stevie Night.

 

This is what I'd be hoping for too......if theres one getting organised I'm definetly up for it as I want to see him call me a "cunt" to my face :icon_lol:

 

Thats the thing about him in regards to this thread.....he cant possibly spek to people like he did on here in real life...if he does I imagine he'd be turn up in a similar state to Steven Hawking ;)

Fiiiiiiiiight! <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
...just from the chat on here?

 

No.

 

I do, however, instantly know if I like someone when I meet them in person. I'm usually right too, if I don't like someone, they invariably turn out to be a cunt.

I'm at a stage now where when I'm introduced to someone new I automatically assume they're a cunt until they prove otherwise.

 

There's a lot of cunts out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...just from the chat on here?

 

No.

 

I do, however, instantly know if I like someone when I meet them in person. I'm usually right too, if I don't like someone, they invariably turn out to be a cunt.

I'm at a stage now where when I'm introduced to someone new I automatically assume they're a cunt until they prove otherwise.

 

There's a lot of cunts out there.

 

me too. Hell is other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly angling for a Stevie Night.

 

This is what I'd be hoping for too......if theres one getting organised I'm definetly up for it as I want to see him call me a "cunt" to my face :icon_lol:

 

Thats the thing about him in regards to this thread.....he cant possibly spek to people like he did on here in real life...if he does I imagine he'd be turn up in a similar state to Steven Hawking ;)

 

probably not but don't take it so seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread reminded me of an essay of Malcolm Gladwell's I just read called "The Newboy Network" which talks about how people make snap judgements about those they've just met, ala-job-interview......anyway here is the relevent bit although the whole essay was quite good.

 

 

Some years ago, an experimental psychologist at Harvard University, Nalini Ambady, together with Robert Rosenthal, set out to examine the nonverbal aspects of good teaching. As the basis of her research, she used videotapes of teaching fellows which had been made during a training program at Harvard. Her plan was to have outside observers look at the tapes with the sound off and rate the effectiveness of the teachers by their expressions and physical cues. Ambady wanted to have at least a minute of film to work with. When she looked at the tapes, though, there was really only about ten seconds when the teachers were shown apart from the students. "I didn't want students in the frame, because obviously it would bias the ratings," Ambady says. "So I went to my adviser, and I said, 'This isn't going to work.'"

 

But it did. The observers, presented with a ten-second silent video clip, had no difficulty rating the teachers on a fifteen- item checklist of personality traits. In fact, when Ambady cut the clips back to five seconds, the ratings were the same. They were even the same when she showed her raters just two seconds of videotape. That sounds unbelievable unless you actually watch Ambady's teacher clips, as I did, and realize that the eight seconds that distinguish the longest clips from the shortest are superfluous: anything beyond the first flash of insight is unnecessary. When we make a snap judgment, it is made in a snap. It's also, very clearly, a judgment:we get a feeling that we have no difficulty articulating.

 

....etc etc, the book "What the dog saw...and other adventures" is worth a read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this thread reminded me of an essay of Malcolm Gladwell's I just read called "The Newboy Network" which talks about how people make snap judgements about those they've just met, ala-job-interview......anyway here is the relevent bit although the whole essay was quite good.

 

 

Some years ago, an experimental psychologist at Harvard University, Nalini Ambady, together with Robert Rosenthal, set out to examine the nonverbal aspects of good teaching. As the basis of her research, she used videotapes of teaching fellows which had been made during a training program at Harvard. Her plan was to have outside observers look at the tapes with the sound off and rate the effectiveness of the teachers by their expressions and physical cues. Ambady wanted to have at least a minute of film to work with. When she looked at the tapes, though, there was really only about ten seconds when the teachers were shown apart from the students. "I didn't want students in the frame, because obviously it would bias the ratings," Ambady says. "So I went to my adviser, and I said, 'This isn't going to work.'"

 

But it did. The observers, presented with a ten-second silent video clip, had no difficulty rating the teachers on a fifteen- item checklist of personality traits. In fact, when Ambady cut the clips back to five seconds, the ratings were the same. They were even the same when she showed her raters just two seconds of videotape. That sounds unbelievable unless you actually watch Ambady's teacher clips, as I did, and realize that the eight seconds that distinguish the longest clips from the shortest are superfluous: anything beyond the first flash of insight is unnecessary. When we make a snap judgment, it is made in a snap. It's also, very clearly, a judgment:we get a feeling that we have no difficulty articulating.

 

....etc etc, the book "What the dog saw...and other adventures" is worth a read.

 

Maybe we have "types" hardwired into da brain...And build up some king of instinctive gut reaction to go with...The types we generrally like are generally the ones we are going to listen to or want to listen to...This is the thing about this thread..It can perhaps even be in the language we use /read...I can write posts in many different ways, but truthfully am aware that certain types of posts work better than other (as is everyone else on here of course)..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the ones who tend to try and wind me up the most would be the ones that I'd probably get on with, the likes of Alex etc

 

No one on here tends to come across as a total arsehole anyway, well out of the more regular posters, you get the odd low post count drop in once in a while who comes off with something stupid then disappears again.

For the fairly large user base this board seems to have a higher standard of poster compared to most football forums, coherent sentences and everything!

Link to post
Share on other sites
this thread reminded me of an essay of Malcolm Gladwell's I just read called "The Newboy Network" which talks about how people make snap judgements about those they've just met, ala-job-interview......anyway here is the relevent bit although the whole essay was quite good.

 

 

Some years ago, an experimental psychologist at Harvard University, Nalini Ambady, together with Robert Rosenthal, set out to examine the nonverbal aspects of good teaching. As the basis of her research, she used videotapes of teaching fellows which had been made during a training program at Harvard. Her plan was to have outside observers look at the tapes with the sound off and rate the effectiveness of the teachers by their expressions and physical cues. Ambady wanted to have at least a minute of film to work with. When she looked at the tapes, though, there was really only about ten seconds when the teachers were shown apart from the students. "I didn't want students in the frame, because obviously it would bias the ratings," Ambady says. "So I went to my adviser, and I said, 'This isn't going to work.'"

 

But it did. The observers, presented with a ten-second silent video clip, had no difficulty rating the teachers on a fifteen- item checklist of personality traits. In fact, when Ambady cut the clips back to five seconds, the ratings were the same. They were even the same when she showed her raters just two seconds of videotape. That sounds unbelievable unless you actually watch Ambady's teacher clips, as I did, and realize that the eight seconds that distinguish the longest clips from the shortest are superfluous: anything beyond the first flash of insight is unnecessary. When we make a snap judgment, it is made in a snap. It's also, very clearly, a judgment:we get a feeling that we have no difficulty articulating.

 

....etc etc, the book "What the dog saw...and other adventures" is worth a read.

 

yawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...