Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I read this some time ago and have been feeling vaguely like there was probably a miscommunication somewhere. For sake of clarification, to me it "goes without saying" (which is why I didn't say it) that people who are more touchy-feely are also highly likely to be the type to lie (say nice things) to your face while stabbing you in the back. Both things tend to be rooted in or related to a dislike of confrontation. People who place an inordinately high value on the (superficially) feel-good experience are, obviously (at least to me), the same type that will make nice while doing you serious harm. Can't have people (ie THEMSELVES) be uncomfortable while we burn them, now can we?

And if you got that the first time: nevermind. :)




Hrm... I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying there is a correlation for being touchy-feely with backstabbing? I thought you meant touchy-feely as a definition for "a woman's touch" so to speak. In other words, being more sensitive. For example, my mom is quite compassionate and empathetic, so she would be more "touchy-feely" about some topics than I might be, but she is the last person that would ever intentionally be a backstabber. I'm not sure if this makes sense, and we may still have some miscommunication. I'm just trying to get more insight into the female perspective, but I think you are saying that often times females may be quicker to be deceitful when talking with one another, whereas males will be blunt and upfront, even if it means offending someone. Perhaps you are intending "touchy-feely" to mean non-genuine? That may be our miscommunication.


I don't think it is accurate to say women (or anyone who is touchy-feely) are more backstabbing. I do think it is accurate to say that touchy-feely types are generally inclined to be less direct (what you characterized as "deceitful") in the face of something socially unpleasant -- they seem to expect others to read between the lines, infer and so on. When such subtleties fail, they often don't deal well with the ugliness which ensues. Having written my above paragraph, it occurred to me that although I am a conflict-avoider and will go out of my way to avoid fighting with people, I seem more comfortable with direct confrontation than most women and that is probably one of the things that makes many people uncomfortable with me. People find me "combative" although I really don't like to fight with people. But if there is an issue, I generally prefer to be direct and prefer people being direct with me -- assuming there is no malice on both sides. Where there is real malice, best to know when to shut up.

FWIW: My experience has been that extremely suave, charming men are typically also untrustworthy. They generally know how to manipulate people and usually don't hesitate to do so. Of course, people who are both charming and have a strong sense of integrity make wonderful company. But if I have to choose one or the other, I prefer integrity to charm.

Perhaps you are intending "touchy-feely" to mean non-genuine?

No, but I think there is some correlation between the two things. People who want very much to make nice are inclined to tell "little white lies", which puts one on a slippery slope. I wish my experiences indicated otherwise.

I hope that is clearer.

Thanks.


Yes, that does seem clearer. Thanks for the clarification. LOL on the "extremely suave, charming men" as it might describe one of my brothers. My mom says he could "charm a nun out of some stuff" ;) And I do think he is a bit manipulative (of my parents at least, he's the baby boy), but I do think he tries to maintain some sense of integrity. Hopefully he notices how straightforward I try to be, and that has some influence. I agree little white lies can put anyone on a slippery slope. It's interesting to imagine those may be more attributable to women than men, in general.


It's interesting to imagine those may be more attributable to women than men, in general.

I think there is some truth to that. I suspect that it's not "genetic" (or whatever) so much as economic (for lack of a better word). But that's probably a very long, controversial, off-topic discussion. :-D




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: