[why_at]

>(“What’s up?” is one of the most dreadful texts to get; it’s short for “Hello, I’d like you to entertain me now.”) And asking your partner question after question and resenting them when they don’t return the favor isn’t generosity; it’s social entrapment

I'm not a great texter but this resonated with me and I'd never really thought about it. It's annoying when I don't feel like texting and I just get bombarded with questions demanding a response. On the other hand I can sympathize if they want to chat and I just don't.

I feel like I've been on both sides of all the examples in this piece depending on what kind of mood I'm in

[uniq7]

And then, if you don't make any questions, they may think that you don't care enough about them. Also, if you just often share information that is interesting to you, some may think you are tedious/boring.

Socializing is really hard.

[salicaster]

Notice that both your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you. If that is your idea of socializing, I would come to the same conclusion.

As cliche as it is, find things in others that genuinely interest you. And don't expect it be a fruitful experience. There are so many reasons the socializing ritual can end up being unfulfilling.

[uniq7]

Did you notice? People tends to interpret others in the worst possible way; even you inferred from my two short sentences that I am a controlling person. I'm not offended, it's just funny, and kind of reinforces my previous point.

Regarding your interpretation, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a huge difference between influencing someone to do what you want and simply being careful with what you say in order to avoid triggering negative responses/feelings in your peers.

I don't think the latter falls into being controlling/manipulative in any way, on the contrary, I think it is the base of good social etiquette, and I prefer to be surrounded by people who behave like that than the opposite.

[salicaster]

There's some good irony in your reply and I think we're both laughing for different reasons. I have no intention in being combative, but it is you who interpreted my post in the worst possible way.

I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person. I was only referring to your fixation on their reactions and feelings.

[uniq7]

> I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person

You literally said:

> your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you

Although the tone you hear in your head may sound stoic, I don't think that stance is neutral at all. You didn't say "I think your sentences..." or "Looks like your sentences..."; you made a subjective affirmation based on two sentences I said about people's feelings in conversations, on a thread about people's feelings in conversations, on a post about people's feelings in conversations.

If my two sentences in this context really mean that I am fixated, then everyone in HN is fixated on whatever they write, which is ridiculous.

I'm starting to think you are just trying to troll me.