1961: "Interaction"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Ignitus
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:48 pm UTC

1961: "Interaction"

Postby Ignitus » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:56 pm UTC

Image

Title: "Interaction"

Title Text: "[They do not move.]"
Last edited by Ignitus on Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:50 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

Ignitus
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:48 pm UTC

Re: 1961: Interaction

Postby Ignitus » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:57 pm UTC

Small talk is hard.
Last edited by Ignitus on Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

DanAxtell
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:59 am UTC
Location: USA (Vermont)

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby DanAxtell » Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:00 pm UTC

Feature request: Try-catch block for social interactions.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby ucim » Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:30 pm UTC

You need to enclose this in a procedure block, so that it can be rolled back if necessary.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby Reka » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:03 pm UTC

Hey, Randall? While I do appreciate you including me in your latest strip, I do have more hair than that.

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:24 pm UTC

Yea, that thing. *flies off back to tree*

airdrik
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby airdrik » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:46 pm UTC

Yeah, I don't think this support group is helping me any. Well, it is good to know that there are plenty of us out there, but it's not helping me develop any of these supposedly basic social protocols.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: 1961: Interaction

Postby Ranbot » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:52 pm UTC

Ignitus wrote:Small talk is hard.

Yep, it is hard to believably fake my interest in the weather, traffic, someone's spawn, or sports; nor do I believe the fake interest from the other person. :roll:

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:43 pm UTC

The problem is that "Thanks!" lacks the large variety of follow-up options that other responses1 have.

When running the Conversational Markov Chain Generator, that's effectively a stop-word. Other languages may have it differently ("Danke" > "Bitte", then what?), but code-switching is advanced basic social interaction and inevitably leads to a "Ciao" > "Ciao" > "Ciao" > "Ciao" > … loop which only kissing can really help exit. (With choices of air, cheek or mouth; and also a real integer number greater than zero, probably a prime, but I can't help you with the details, you might as well be trying to cross the lettered paving in Last Crusade, because then you'd step wrong less.)

1 Don't ask me to list them!

User avatar
Bnoru
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:54 pm UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby Bnoru » Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:58 pm UTC

Please tell me the alt-text is a reference to Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett.

Ignitus
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:48 pm UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby Ignitus » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:21 pm UTC

Explain XKCD seems to agree with you. It must be official.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:39 pm UTC

I see Randall's subtext interpreter is active in this strip.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5006
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:01 pm UTC

There was a time in which I was terrible at basic social interactions, but at that time I didn't know how terrible at them I was.

Almost immediately upon becoming aware that that was something I needed to improve upon, I got much better much more quickly.

So I've never really had this phase where I'm trying to do basic social interaction but it's hard. I either wasn't trying, or it was easy to do.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

mouseposture
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:42 am UTC

Re: 1961: Interaction

Postby mouseposture » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:05 am UTC

Ranbot wrote:
Ignitus wrote:Small talk is hard.

Yep, it is hard to believably fake my interest in the weather, traffic, someone's spawn, or sports; nor do I believe the fake interest from the other person. :roll:


That's why it's an effective signaling behavior: it's expensive. You're not supposed to believe they are interested. You're supposed to believe they care enough to feign interest.

Monster_user
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:35 am UTC

Re: 1961: Interaction

Postby Monster_user » Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:23 am UTC

mouseposture wrote:
Ranbot wrote:
Ignitus wrote:Small talk is hard.

Yep, it is hard to believably fake my interest in the weather, traffic, someone's spawn, or sports; nor do I believe the fake interest from the other person. :roll:


That's why it's an effective signaling behavior: it's expensive. You're not supposed to believe they are interested. You're supposed to believe they care enough to feign interest.


Such has quite the opposite affect on me. If their faking interest, I generally assume they are intentionally choosing trivial conversation topics to avoid giving the false impression of friendship. Ie., Small Talk is just business. Something to fill a void.

DanAxtell
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:59 am UTC
Location: USA (Vermont)

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby DanAxtell » Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:53 am UTC

Since this thread is apparently a gathering of the sort of people who consider numbers among their friends, I'll point out that this is the last XKCD comic number that reads the same upside down as upside up until January 8, 2044.
(This assumes that April 1st numbering variations tend to cancel out.)

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby pogrmman » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:24 am UTC

One annoying thing about small talk is that I’m actually really, really, really interested in the weather. It’s a fascinating subject, but I always kind of feel like other people interpret my talking about it as small talk :/

Fortunately, many of my IRL friends are also really anxious about social interactions, so it ends up working out just “fine”.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 927
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby da Doctah » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:01 am UTC

pogrmman wrote:One annoying thing about small talk is that I’m actually really, really, really interested in the weather. It’s a fascinating subject, but I always kind of feel like other people interpret my talking about it as small talk :/


You need to start including words like "adiabatic" in your discussion to prove you're not just a dilettante.

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby heuristically_alone » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:34 pm UTC

Goodbyes are so awkward. I understand the title text of them just standing there waiting for the other to officialy "goodbye" you first. As a result sometimes I just abruptly end a conversation trying to avoid the awkward goodbye confusing the other person.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

You can learn to levitate with just a little help.

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

User avatar
timrem
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:02 am UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby timrem » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:44 pm UTC

DanAxtell wrote:Since this thread is apparently a gathering of the sort of people who consider numbers among their friends, I'll point out that this is the last XKCD comic number that reads the same upside down as upside up until January 8, 2044.
(This assumes that April 1st numbering variations tend to cancel out.)

I would argue that comic 2002 qualifies, and is right around the corner.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1961: Interaction

Postby orthogon » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:47 pm UTC

mouseposture wrote:
Ranbot wrote:
Ignitus wrote:Small talk is hard.

Yep, it is hard to believably fake my interest in the weather, traffic, someone's spawn, or sports; nor do I believe the fake interest from the other person. :roll:


That's why it's an effective signaling behavior: it's expensive. You're not supposed to believe they are interested. You're supposed to believe they care enough to feign interest.


I think there are two different things here. The weather, sports and to some extent current affairs are things that both parties are expected to be interested in to a roughly similar degree. Under those circumstances it's a fairly pleasurable activity and not especially costly. It's a failure of somebody's smalltalk not to pick up on cues that the topic they've chosen doesn't interest the other person, e.g. it's a sport they don't follow. (In a sense pogrmman's problem might be the flip-side of this: choosing as a smalltalk subject something that is highly interesting to the other person and hence not appropriate for discussion at a casual and, perhaps, ill-informed level).

Talking about somebody's kids or holiday is quite a different thing: one person is way more invested and interested in it, and the other is likely to have to make at least some effort; this probably dues fit into mouseposture's theory. But again, one should judge this and not spend so long on it that it bores the listener.

Talking about one's own problems and joys with good friends is different again: it's not smalltalk but part of what friends do for each other: helping them to unload the bad stuff and indulging them as they celebrate the good stuff.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: 1961: Interaction

Postby Ranbot » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:58 pm UTC

mouseposture wrote:
Ranbot wrote:
Ignitus wrote:Small talk is hard.

Yep, it is hard to believably fake my interest in the weather, traffic, someone's spawn, or sports; nor do I believe the fake interest from the other person. :roll:


That's why it's an effective signaling behavior: it's expensive. You're not supposed to believe they are interested. You're supposed to believe they care enough to feign interest.

So, I should see that it's good someone is taking the time to feign interest in a conversation with me and I should return the feigned interest because they will think that's good even though we both know the other doesn't care. And what then? Do we double-think ourselves into happiness and friendship? This sounds like relationship advice from George Orwell.
Monster_user wrote:Such has quite the opposite affect on me. If their faking interest, I generally assume they are intentionally choosing trivial conversation topics to avoid giving the false impression of friendship...

Agreed.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby ucim » Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:23 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:So, I should see that it's good someone is taking the time to feign interest in a conversation with me and I should return the feigned interest because they will think that's good even though we both know the other doesn't care. And what then?
Perhaps you'll stumble upon a topic that you're both actually interested in. When that happens, you'll know. Meanwhile, at least you know this one's a friendly face, and that's good to know.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1961: Interaction

Postby Old Bruce » Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:24 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:
mouseposture wrote:
Ranbot wrote:
Ignitus wrote:Small talk is hard.

Yep, it is hard to believably fake my interest in the weather, traffic, someone's spawn, or sports; nor do I believe the fake interest from the other person. :roll:


That's why it's an effective signaling behavior: it's expensive. You're not supposed to believe they are interested. You're supposed to believe they care enough to feign interest.

So, I should see that it's good someone is taking the time to feign interest in a conversation with me and I should return the feigned interest because they will think that's good even though we both know the other doesn't care. And what then? Do we double-think ourselves into happiness and friendship? This sounds like relationship advice from George Orwell.
...

I would think George Carlin, not Orwell.

DanAxtell
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:59 am UTC
Location: USA (Vermont)

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby DanAxtell » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:07 am UTC

timrem wrote:
DanAxtell wrote:Since this thread is apparently a gathering of the sort of people who consider numbers among their friends, I'll point out that this is the last XKCD comic number that reads the same upside down as upside up until January 8, 2044.
(This assumes that April 1st numbering variations tend to cancel out.)

I would argue that comic 2002 qualifies, and is right around the corner.

Agreed. Digit shapes are cultural constructs and, thus, have many legitimate variations. Actually, I think I wandered away from mathematical purity in two ways with my observation. The first was my focus on the representation of a number (rather than the number) and the second was my focus on the rather silly, inefficient base of ten. It makes some numbers look round when there are other nearby numbers that are rounder by any of the definitions of "round".

Still, I had fun querying wolframalpha.com "(6009-1961)/3 weeks from today" (and I double checked by using an integer number of weeks and separately adding the remainder's worth of days).

keldor
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:18 am UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby keldor » Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:25 am UTC

DanAxtell wrote:
timrem wrote:
DanAxtell wrote:Since this thread is apparently a gathering of the sort of people who consider numbers among their friends, I'll point out that this is the last XKCD comic number that reads the same upside down as upside up until January 8, 2044.
(This assumes that April 1st numbering variations tend to cancel out.)

I would argue that comic 2002 qualifies, and is right around the corner.

Agreed. Digit shapes are cultural constructs and, thus, have many legitimate variations. Actually, I think I wandered away from mathematical purity in two ways with my observation. The first was my focus on the representation of a number (rather than the number) and the second was my focus on the rather silly, inefficient base of ten. It makes some numbers look round when there are other nearby numbers that are rounder by any of the definitions of "round".


The problem is that these other bases are less natural to count on one's fingers, which is important to some people.

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 829
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby chridd » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:39 am UTC

In many fonts (including the one the forum is using on my computer), not even 1961 is the same right-side up and upside down, since there's the little line thingy at the top of the one and sometimes another different line thingy at the bottom.

Base 10 is significant here because it's what's used in the URL. It might be more accurate to consider the identifier for this comic to be the string containing the characters '1', '9', '6', '1', rather than the number 1961.
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
chridd (on Discord) wrote:
Dummy wrote:Sorry You're Gay Dads
SYG'D
marionic (on Discord) wrote:sleep in grave

FOARP
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby FOARP » Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:30 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:There was a time in which I was terrible at basic social interactions, but at that time I didn't know how terrible at them I was.

Almost immediately upon becoming aware that that was something I needed to improve upon, I got much better much more quickly.

So I've never really had this phase where I'm trying to do basic social interaction but it's hard. I either wasn't trying, or it was easy to do.


I was a science nerd, so...

But the thing is, I got good at them ... and then I no longer felt the need to have to perform in public situations any more. I went back to being fairly anti-social except amongst people who I knew I was going to communicate with on something like a regular basis.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5006
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1961: "Interaction"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:36 pm UTC

FOARP wrote:But the thing is, I got good at them ... and then I no longer felt the need to have to perform in public situations any more. I went back to being fairly anti-social except amongst people who I knew I was going to communicate with on something like a regular basis.

Same here.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archgeek, moody7277, rmsgrey and 29 guests