- How about the old fashioned freezing with a face contorted in fear like your being held at knife point unable to think of anything to say and just waiting to be able to leave? When you get asked a question, fumble over your words and say something stupid. Later on, you can reflexively watch the memory played over and over again so you're even worse the next time. If you see anyone you met during the encounter afterwards, you can just panic and try to hide your face and escape.
That's a lot easier and comes off more natural IMO.
- As a anti-social person and a misanthrope, these are all tips for amateurs that assume you must be in a relationship with other people. This is not true. One can be a hermit and enjoy the solitude. My comment here is not designed for replies and social interaction. I'm making it to test my idea against the wisdom of the crowds in case someone can enlighten me about where I might be wrong. I'm seeking information, not society. This is grating to me even as I write it. Who do I think I am? That doesn't make it any less true.
by doginasuit
1 subcomments
- I think the most valuable thing here is to not jump to a negative assumption about people, something I wish it followed more closely in its other points. Virtually anyone who has a very different perspective than the group will face friction, and handling that friction gracefully isn't something that comes naturally to most people. People can get stuck in a pattern of handling the friction poorly, but the group as a whole also has the opportunity for grace and understanding that can diffuse the problem, if that is something that is valuable to them.
- This seems to be a very peculiar and adversarial interpretation of anti-social. I am relatively anti-social and consider this a bit of a character flaw, but would generally say that I do not assume the worst in others and am relatively introspective. It just doesn't come naturally to me, but that does not mean that I think less of others.
by ernesto905
2 subcomments
- > when all hope is lost in conversation, retreat into your self
This speaks to me quite a bit, particularly around unfalsifiable topics I'll have with friends/family, such as theology. If we define hope as the idea they'll change their mind and agree with me, seems not much one can do but retreat into themself, right? I suppose I can sympathize with their sentiment before I retreat into myself, but taking this bullet point at face value I'm unsure how to make this a pro-social experience :/
- online sociability protip: writing in all lowercase outside of instant messaging comes across (to me) as weirdly manipulative, status seeking behavior. you want people to read your stuff and to come to some form of conclusion—you wouldn't be writing, editing and posting text otherwise—but you feel you have to put your ideas and your vulnerability behind a moat of detached, nonchalant aesthetics
nothing personnel, kid
- some of these _are_ true _good_ advice for most ppl, beginner level as they may be, as by default they have been trained to be waaaaay too agreeable
- The other day someone described themselves to me as an 'empath' which was odd, because in the context of the discussion it was invalidating to hear. And ironic considering they hadn't forseen how I would take it.
Some people have ultimate confidence in their social judgements and the true sign of empathy is a kind of meta-empathy that allows you to consider truly alternative understandings of the world i.e. empathy for empathy.
by pickleglitch
0 subcomment
- > exploit your immediate network;
Sorry, networks, in this context, are too social for me, as they involve other people.
- This isn't a personality issue at all—it's pure disrespect. If someone treated me like that, I wouldn't befriend them or open up to them either. Sincerity is a two-way street.
- Morality trumps sociability, something piece doesn’t mention.
E.g.
“ when ambiguous, assume intent is malicious, ignorant, or amoral”
Most immoral actors cloak deliberately cloak themselves in ambiguity.
- I am autistic and asocial fits more than anti-social because I am not actually doing any "anti" behavior, just trying to avoid the beurocratic small talk and general conformist interactions
- The first 3 points are solid advice, but the rest read more like a guide on how to be successful in the work place in my experience.
- I think that a willingness to interpret this as (good) satire can be used to indicate one's own level of socialization especially in adversarial contexts.
- a lot of these actually sound like good strategy for (upper) management, or those with executive aspirations (sadly).
- (Cognitive behavioral therapy enjoyer l just cut off in traffic) Think positively. He is probably in a rush for a reason. Maybe he's late for a job interview. Maybe his wife is giving birth
Me: I'm da king of da highway
by sillywabbit
0 subcomment
- Assuming that everyone you meet is conspiring against you seems to be a pre-requisite to these. The feasibility of that is questionable.
by anshumankmr
1 subcomments
- I think this rather describes someone with a cognitive bias which can be cured rather than someone truly anti social (I know someone who I believe is anti social but they tick off a lot more boxes than this. There is an overlap for sure in what you described BUT its a lot more complex than this)
- I like most people as long as they leave me alone.
by perching_aix
0 subcomment
- The anti-social behaviors I'm seeing are a lot more primitive (engagement and reaction bait, and other "simulated conduct" as I like to call it), and the people engaging in them don't really need a guide. Sarcastic rants like this always strike me as somewhere between tonedeaf and insulting as a result. You know it perfectly well that it's those who should be minding these the most are the ones that never will (and won't even be reading this).
That said, if I may be so hypocritical to add to the list, the heavy reliance on pointing out fallacies is a pretty big one. A lot of the times it simply degenerates conversations into logical golf, with no semblance of trying to actually understand the other person remaining. Though in those cases, that intent was usually never really present to begin with.
- Does kinda read like an engineer just had their 1st encounter with management.
by throwanem
1 subcomments
- The real HN discussion guidelines.
- that list fits the bill for becoming POTUS
- As someone who identifies as autistic, after particularly notable social encounters, I describe them, best I can, to ChatGPT, and damned if the thing doesn't explain why people reacted the way they did so I can do better next time.
by ashtonshears
0 subcomment
- This is soley a list of how to be explicitly negative internally and externally, the people in this thread equating it to disorders need to re-think the text. Its a list of what not to do as a human.
With respect to all; there is an incredible amount of subtle communications that go into standard conversations
by sublinear
3 subcomments
- This list is actually just narcissism combined with low self-esteem.
For younger introverts, none of this behavior is necessarily anti-social if the group all shares these same traits. The moment a member of that group has any higher self-esteem than the rest, they will either see that individual as "cool" or as a threat (or both).
To be truly anti-social is to either completely isolate yourself, or be unrelentingly and unreasonably hostile in all interactions. This list is neither. It's just passive aggressive and a lot of ego.
by LeCompteSftware
1 subcomments
- I've seen a lot posts like this recently. This comment is coming from the perspective of someone who the author would consider "anti-social": I once reported my boss to HR for a racist remark, and then resigned in protest. By 2026 I have embraced being a somewhat Diogenesian outcast and progressive hall monitor. I lost friends over it.
So I find this post incredibly condescending, and it seems clearly directed at a few specific people this author had some sort of moral or political disagreement with. Which means the author is committing the exact sins he's inveighing against!
I will be a little more specific:
assume they have no sane reason for doing or saying what they are doing or saying
Who exactly is assuming bad faith here? When I have a moral disagreement with someone it's rarely because they are ignorant or insane, it's because we have a fundamental difference in values. As a progressive, usually the person I disagree with is quite cynical and deeply rational. They might in good faith assume I am a bleeding heart who is also somewhat rational. Sometimes hearts are irreconcilable: a rich person I went to college with decided to become a for-profit landlord, so we aren't friends anymore. I simply think they're evil and won't associate with them. Stuff like that is always confusing and upsetting, often for both people involved; I am sure my landlord apostate friend didn't see what the big deal was. The author's "view from nowhere" posture is quite childish. assume intent is malicious, ignorant, or amoral.
This is followed immediately by the author assuming malicious ignorance! "do not challenge or acknowledge the existence or influence of your assumptions, wholly trust your intuition and feelings" interpret others' actions in the context of your fears
This is just pure sneering judgment. It doesn't mean anything, it's just name-calling. "People disagree with me because they're cowards!" exploit your immediate network; when the obvious merits of your narrative are exhausted, present like-minded people with tastefully curated details of your interactions with detractors, to provide a more appropriate account that your supporters can rally around to crush any lingering threats to your narrative
Again there seems to be some very specific baggage here! Did he get in a fight on Twitter or something? Anyway, "your supporters can rally around" contradicts these people being "anti-social" and "isolating." Perhaps there are a large number of people who disagree with the author's values, and that's what he's really upset about. But rather than say "people disagree with me and I can't convince them otherwise" he is content to say "people disagree with me because they're antisocial cowards." This is itself antisocial and cowardly, isn't it? I think the author should be concluding "getting in fights on Twitter is bad for human souls." do not grant grace to those who make mistakes, especially those that you have never met or otherwise spoken to
It does not seem like he is granting any of these anti-social people any grace, just a wall of unforgiving judgment. If they admit they are irrational weaklings then maybe the author will allow them a tiny helping of grace, as a treat. do not seek to understand those you do not already understand
Indeed I get the impression the author doesn't understand me at all, and has no interest in doing so. It's a lot easier to just conclude I am a stupid coward.
by sillysaurusx
0 subcomment
- [dead]
- > dig in your heels when confronted with overwhelming dissent
Of course, the majority is always right and we should yield to it right away /s
Hacker News