|
United States43353 Posts
On May 17 2020 01:36 Dracolich70 wrote:
A firm grip of the handshake tells a lot of the person and their character. Handshakes is great and respectful to all ages. It's step before a hug, which in turn is before a deep heartfelt hug.
People that can't tell anything from these things are cut off from valuable information, which is either caused by lack of emotional intelligence, bodily intelligence, and/or upbringing.
The bow from other cultures have the same measures, but they also regard to some measures of hierarchy, which a handshake doesn't.
You say it tells a lot. Quantify that. You shake the hands of everyone in a room. I exchange salutes with everyone in the same room. What have they told you but not me?
|
Feels very weird. The less physical contact I've made with someone the less acquainted I feel with them.
Also I just don't respect any man with a weak handshake
|
On May 17 2020 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 01:36 Dracolich70 wrote:
A firm grip of the handshake tells a lot of the person and their character. Handshakes is great and respectful to all ages. It's step before a hug, which in turn is before a deep heartfelt hug.
People that can't tell anything from these things are cut off from valuable information, which is either caused by lack of emotional intelligence, bodily intelligence, and/or upbringing.
The bow from other cultures have the same measures, but they also regard to some measures of hierarchy, which a handshake doesn't. You say it tells a lot. Quantify that. You shake the hands of everyone in a room. I exchange salutes with everyone in the same room. What have they told you but not me?
Handshakes are an effective indicator of whether someone is good at navigating (and willing to navigate) arbitrary social signalling rituals.
Absent context, a handshake doesn't tell you anything. There's no intrinsic benefit or purpose to a handshake, it exists only to signal politeness, and it only signals politeness because we as a society collectively agree that it does so. That stands in contrast to something like, say, holding the door, which also signals politeness, but does so based on something intrinsic to the action (it signals politeness because it's a symbolic way of doing someone a favor). However, there are enough people like Dracolich70 and [UoN]Sentinel in the world that, despite being intrinsically useless, it is useful in the context of society to be good at handshakes, so that you can impress people like Dracolich70 and [UoN]Sentinel, and they will like you and maybe hire you or whatever.
And being good at handshakes is kind of hard. Too firm and you're an overbearing jerk, too limp and you're a wuss. Too much eye contact and you're creepy and need to tone it down a notch, not enough eye contact and you come off as nervous or weak. And nobody will ever give you clear feedback about getting it wrong, so you have to infer your feedback from subtle reactions and body language. This is not an accident: The whole point of social rituals like this is to be difficult enough to get right that only people who have the skill of figuring out opaque, arbitrary social rituals will get them right.
Thus, when someone like Dracolich70 and [UoN]Sentinel shakes your hand, they can judge the quality of your handshake, and make inferences about what kind of person you are. If you get it right, they know that you're both socially aware enough to figure out how to handshake properly (despite the difficulty), and you're the kind of person who is willing to play along with arbitrary social rituals in order to fit in. If you get it wrong, they know you're either too socially inept to learn how to handshake properly, or you're the kind of grumpy contrarian who refuses to go along with arbitrary social rituals because they make no sense.
This is useful information! If you run a company full of conformist boyscout types, and you want to avoid hiring nerds, misanthropes, and weirdos who won't fit in, then a handshake is an excellent indicator of that!
A salute doesn't provide the same kind of information (in mainstream western culture, at least) because we don't have the same kind of norms built up around it. However, other cultures do have norms about salutes - for instance, I bet military service members can infer stuff about each other from the quality of their salutes. But I and my peers can't, because we haven't built up sufficiently standardized norms around saluting to reliably know if someone is violating them.
|
but Kwark can have the interviewee across his 6ft table, poke him with ... questions for some time, then make the same or better inferences; plus, he'll be corona-free(unless no protection was used during poking).
Edit: he doesn't want you to justify why you're doing it, he wants you to make him do it because it's the only way to ... (sniff his hands for ex.).
|
(that wasn't supposed to be an argument that we should keep doing handshakes during the apocalypse, just an answer to "what info does a handshake give you")
|
but he knows that, people know that.
|
The handshake is not dead! I just saw the first handshake after the Spanish lockdown. A a group of buddies in their 20s were hanging out in a back street, and when one of the cooler members arrived on his scooter, the urge for the traditional high handshake+buddyhug was too strong to resist.
I do not think it is smart, given how we know for sure it is one of the main ways the virus spreads, but I am trying to do my best not to judge people. There are extremely few infections in my area of Spain now as the lockdown was long and in place before the virus got a footing.
Handshakes among friends you see every week should be a lot less dangerous than with people you don't know or are from out of town. Travelling and groups where strangers are mixed seem like major risk factors.
|
On May 17 2020 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 01:36 Dracolich70 wrote:
A firm grip of the handshake tells a lot of the person and their character. Handshakes is great and respectful to all ages. It's step before a hug, which in turn is before a deep heartfelt hug.
People that can't tell anything from these things are cut off from valuable information, which is either caused by lack of emotional intelligence, bodily intelligence, and/or upbringing.
The bow from other cultures have the same measures, but they also regard to some measures of hierarchy, which a handshake doesn't. You say it tells a lot. Quantify that. You shake the hands of everyone in a room. I exchange salutes with everyone in the same room. What have they told you but not me?
For one, how willing they are to interact with you. If someone reluctantly shakes your hand, you already know he doesn't really give a damn. If someone looks like he couldn't wait to do it, they are probably out to suck up to you.
A more balanced handshake means he thinks you're on the same hierarchy.
|
If someone reluctantly shakes your hand, you already know he doesn't really give a damn
How can you tell whether he doesn't give a damn about handshaking in general or about the person whose hand he's supposed to shake?
|
If you think a handshakes gives you valuable information, you are a bit of a sucker and easily manipulated.
Don't believe me? Come shake hands with me, you'll find me very trustworthy. 
|
I have so many questions...Is there an official handshake interpretation reference document?
Are there disagreements among leading experts or are these traits ubiquitous?
How does one know someone doesn't also know this handshake code and isn't manipulating it as danger suggests? Just to name a few.
|
United States43353 Posts
On May 17 2020 12:16 ASoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2020 01:36 Dracolich70 wrote:
A firm grip of the handshake tells a lot of the person and their character. Handshakes is great and respectful to all ages. It's step before a hug, which in turn is before a deep heartfelt hug.
People that can't tell anything from these things are cut off from valuable information, which is either caused by lack of emotional intelligence, bodily intelligence, and/or upbringing.
The bow from other cultures have the same measures, but they also regard to some measures of hierarchy, which a handshake doesn't. You say it tells a lot. Quantify that. You shake the hands of everyone in a room. I exchange salutes with everyone in the same room. What have they told you but not me? Handshakes are an effective indicator of whether someone is good at navigating (and willing to navigate) arbitrary social signalling rituals. Absent context, a handshake doesn't tell you anything. There's no intrinsic benefit or purpose to a handshake, it exists only to signal politeness, and it only signals politeness because we as a society collectively agree that it does so. That stands in contrast to something like, say, holding the door, which also signals politeness, but does so based on something intrinsic to the action (it signals politeness because it's a symbolic way of doing someone a favor). However, there are enough people like Dracolich70 and [UoN]Sentinel in the world that, despite being intrinsically useless, it is useful in the context of society to be good at handshakes, so that you can impress people like Dracolich70 and [UoN]Sentinel, and they will like you and maybe hire you or whatever. And being good at handshakes is kind of hard. Too firm and you're an overbearing jerk, too limp and you're a wuss. Too much eye contact and you're creepy and need to tone it down a notch, not enough eye contact and you come off as nervous or weak. And nobody will ever give you clear feedback about getting it wrong, so you have to infer your feedback from subtle reactions and body language. This is not an accident: The whole point of social rituals like this is to be difficult enough to get right that only people who have the skill of figuring out opaque, arbitrary social rituals will get them right. Thus, when someone like Dracolich70 and [UoN]Sentinel shakes your hand, they can judge the quality of your handshake, and make inferences about what kind of person you are. If you get it right, they know that you're both socially aware enough to figure out how to handshake properly (despite the difficulty), and you're the kind of person who is willing to play along with arbitrary social rituals in order to fit in. If you get it wrong, they know you're either too socially inept to learn how to handshake properly, or you're the kind of grumpy contrarian who refuses to go along with arbitrary social rituals because they make no sense. This is useful information! If you run a company full of conformist boyscout types, and you want to avoid hiring nerds, misanthropes, and weirdos who won't fit in, then a handshake is an excellent indicator of that! A salute doesn't provide the same kind of information (in mainstream western culture, at least) because we don't have the same kind of norms built up around it. However, other cultures do have norms about salutes - for instance, I bet military service members can infer stuff about each other from the quality of their salutes. But I and my peers can't, because we haven't built up sufficiently standardized norms around saluting to reliably know if someone is violating them.
This is an excellent summation of my point, that the only information you get is how good they are at doing an arbitrary gesture which could be replaced by a more hygienic gesture without intrinsic loss, assuming society agreed on the new social custom.
|
for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless).
|
United States43353 Posts
On May 18 2020 01:13 xM(Z wrote:for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: Show nested quote +One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless).
I'm not sure I understand your point but I'm still of the opinion that you should stop sniffing your hand immediately after shaking hands with women.
|
On May 18 2020 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 01:13 xM(Z wrote:for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless). I'm not sure I understand your point but I'm still of the opinion that you should stop sniffing your hand immediately after shaking hands with women. point was you're just like them: rationalizing and defending your own culture.
your failure to engage in the first person is off-putting; even when joking.
(at least i'm touching women instead of creepily staring at them to gather intell)
|
On May 18 2020 01:54 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 01:43 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 01:13 xM(Z wrote:for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless). I'm not sure I understand your point but I'm still of the opinion that you should stop sniffing your hand immediately after shaking hands with women. point was you're just like them: rationalizing and defending your own culture. your failure to engage in the first person is off-putting; even when joking. (at least i'm touching women instead of creepily staring at them to gather intell)
I wouldn't be so quick to brag about touching women in this context, lol.
Also, if someone is quick to shake my hand I mostly find that off-putting, about the only time I think it's appropriate to shake hands is in a business hand shake but otherwise it tells me the person is weirdly engaged with inane social norms even in more casual contexts, like someone who requests a salad fork for their McDonald's salad if that makes sense.
I get less info from a handshake than I do from the way someone greets, like Hi, or Hello, or Salutations Fellow Human, etc.
Words are just better for communication than grabbing someone else's appendage imo.
|
United States43353 Posts
On May 18 2020 01:54 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 01:43 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 01:13 xM(Z wrote:for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless). I'm not sure I understand your point but I'm still of the opinion that you should stop sniffing your hand immediately after shaking hands with women. point was you're just like them: rationalizing and defending your own culture. your failure to engage in the first person is off-putting; even when joking. (at least i'm touching women instead of creepily staring at them to gather intell)
I'm great at handshakes, I just don't follow them up with a discrete hand sniff because "pheromones" like you do.
|
On May 18 2020 02:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 01:54 xM(Z wrote:On May 18 2020 01:43 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 01:13 xM(Z wrote:for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless). I'm not sure I understand your point but I'm still of the opinion that you should stop sniffing your hand immediately after shaking hands with women. point was you're just like them: rationalizing and defending your own culture. your failure to engage in the first person is off-putting; even when joking. (at least i'm touching women instead of creepily staring at them to gather intell) I'm great at handshakes, I just don't follow them up with a discrete hand sniff because "pheromones" like you do. yea, deflection + passive aggressive distraction; gadamnit dude, gl.
@Zambrah: that tells me you're a bit of a germaphobe; the rest(of your post) is its rationalization.
i don't usually shake hands but if someone offers it's fine by me, even in these times.
|
On May 18 2020 02:18 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 01:54 xM(Z wrote:On May 18 2020 01:43 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 01:13 xM(Z wrote:for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless). I'm not sure I understand your point but I'm still of the opinion that you should stop sniffing your hand immediately after shaking hands with women. point was you're just like them: rationalizing and defending your own culture. your failure to engage in the first person is off-putting; even when joking. (at least i'm touching women instead of creepily staring at them to gather intell) I wouldn't be so quick to brag about touching women in this context, lol. Also, if someone is quick to shake my hand I mostly find that off-putting, about the only time I think it's appropriate to shake hands is in a business hand shake but otherwise it tells me the person is weirdly engaged with inane social norms even in more casual contexts, like someone who requests a salad fork for their McDonald's salad if that makes sense. I get less info from a handshake than I do from the way someone greets, like Hi, or Hello, or Salutations Fellow Human, etc. Words are just better for communication than grabbing someone else's appendage imo.
Spoken like someone with a weak handshake
|
United States43353 Posts
On May 18 2020 02:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 02:23 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 01:54 xM(Z wrote:On May 18 2020 01:43 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 01:13 xM(Z wrote:for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability, Kwark, you are around here: One prominent social development of modernity was the rise in importance of the individual as a discrete entity with personal rights and boundaries. In terms of the social history of the senses, this meant that people had to take greater care not to trangress the sensory space of others with untoward odors, noises, or touches. As the most apparently detached of the senses, sight was often the most socially acceptable sense. This was particularly true in the context of urban centers, in which people daily came across strangers whom they could not touch or smell, to whom they could not even speak with propriety, but at whom they could look. In fact the saying "look but don't touch" became a sensory motto of the modern age.
The elevation of sight in modernity was often presented in evolutionary terms as the final stage in a sensory and social development from barbarism to civilization. Civilized people, it was held, perceived and appreciated the world primarily through their eyes. Primitive people, by contrast, were imagined to rely just as much on their noses and fingers for knowledge of the world. Charles Darwin gave this notion of a social progress from the "lower" senses to the "higher" a biological basis by suggesting in his theory of evolution that sight became evermore important to humans as they evolved from animals and learned to walk upright and take their noses off the ground. Sigmund Freud later psychologized this theory and claimed that individuals went through similar sensory stages in the transition from infancy to adulthood.
As the above indicates, in many cases the elevation of sight was accompanied by a diminution in the importance of the other senses, particularly the proximity senses. Smell, taste, and touch were divested of much of their former cosmological and physical powers and were relegated to the cultural realm of personal pleasure or displeasure. right?(maybe less embellished/more straightforward but similar nonetheless). I'm not sure I understand your point but I'm still of the opinion that you should stop sniffing your hand immediately after shaking hands with women. point was you're just like them: rationalizing and defending your own culture. your failure to engage in the first person is off-putting; even when joking. (at least i'm touching women instead of creepily staring at them to gather intell) I'm great at handshakes, I just don't follow them up with a discrete hand sniff because "pheromones" like you do. yea, deflection + passive aggressive distraction; gadamnit dude, gl. @Zambrah: that tells me you're a bit of a germaphobe; the rest(of your post) is its rationalization. i don't usually shake hands but if someone offers it's fine by me, even in these times.
You were doing this weird thing where you take my argument (that a handshake gives you no information beyond the ability to conform to an arbitrary custom which has no marginal advantages over any other arbitrary custom we could replace a handshake with) and substituting it with an implication that I'm some kind of autist who can't shake hands with people and creepily stare at women. That's a pretty fucking dumb thing to do, especially when I'm a successful professional who manages people, holds meetings, and shakes hands all the fucking time while you, by your own admission, like to sniff your hands after touching women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
