[swiftcoder]

If we must talk about social interactions in terms of science experiments, repeated observations are exactly how one validates a hypothesis.

People-watch at enough weddings, your observations of wedding-goers will become more accurate.

[perlgeek]

I agree that repeated observation increases the confidence in a hypothesis.

But, only if it's a hypothesis that can be validated in such a way.

From OP

> By internal architecture, what I mean is, when someone talks to me, what I notice first are the supporting beams propping up their words: the cadence and tone and desire behind them. I hear if they are bored, fascinated, wanting validation or connection. I often feel like I can hear how much they like themselves.

The last part (how much they like themselves) is an interpretation or a causal speculation, and something very prone to confirmation bias.

Like, what kind of observed behavior would you make less confident in that?

The article is a mix of very good observations and some more speculative statements, which seems to trigger us, the HN commenter crowd :-)

[sizzle]

Yeah a lot of those stood out like thorns to me cause I just don’t agree with her conclusions. Immediately set off some alarm bells i.e. that’s just, like, your opinion, man…