|
On May 18 2020 02:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 02:30 xM(Z wrote: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. ahahahaha, lol.
1) blind people, that's a straight up loss as far as your argument goes and it's funny;
2) provided links to a study showing people sniffing their hands after a handshake while being totally unaware of doing it; what info they'd gather from it i wouldn't know, but you can go with the researchers theories on chemosignaling.
that's 2-0 and all you have is a couple of unfunny jabs at me; i don't know man, i'm good.
(the "implications" you're talking about there come from your own insecurities so there, you're on your own)
Edit: for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability - i believe you're a slave to your culture and based on that, your argument has no merits. it's not objective enough.
|
This thread does not feel productive in regards to discussing handshakes. It's like a boxing ring where people come to box Kwark over something neither party truly gives a shit about because everyone's bored and it is amusing.
Does anyone have an actual argument to field? Sentinel, what's your alternative to handshakes that still lets you flex on people with your purported manliness, yet is more hygenic than handshaking? Chest-bumping? Mutual bird-flipping? I wanna know what the next evolution in socially competitive greeting is.
|
United States42539 Posts
On May 18 2020 02:55 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 02:37 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 02:30 xM(Z wrote: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. ahahahaha, lol. 1) blind people, that's a straight up loss as far as your argument goes and it's funny; 2) provided links to a study showing people sniffing their hands after a handshake while being totally unaware of doing it; what info they'd gather from it i wouldn't know, but you can go with the researchers theories on chemosignaling. that's 2-0 and all you have is a couple of unfunny jabs at me; i don't know man, i'm good. (the "implications" you're talking about there come from your own insecurities so there, you're on your own) Edit: for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability - i believe you're a slave to your culture and based on that, your argument has no merits. it's not objective enough.
The example you gave of blind people is that they could feel if the person they were shaking hands with was cold and, based upon that, offer them a jacket. I can't think of many professional situations where I would bring spare jackets and start going "You feel cold bro, you want a jacket? I have jackets". But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and invited you to tell me about some of those. You declined to do so but are, for some reason, still insisting that blind people feeling how cold someone is is totally a reasonable use of the handshake.
|
In my experience xMZ, people don't offer their hands to blind people for handshakes. Because you know, they are BLIND.
On May 17 2020 03:22 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
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 So you don't respect anybody who comes from a culture which doesn't shake hands or where the handshaking is done weakly instead firmly? How about women then? You just straight up don't respect them? Or just straight up beleive that matters of respect in social greetings be in the realm of men?
|
On May 18 2020 03:22 Fleetfeet wrote:
This thread does not feel productive in regards to discussing handshakes. It's like a boxing ring where people come to box Kwark over something neither party truly gives a shit about because everyone's bored and it is amusing.
Does anyone have an actual argument to field? Sentinel, what's your alternative to handshakes that still lets you flex on people with your purported manliness, yet is more hygenic than handshaking? Chest-bumping? Mutual bird-flipping? I wanna know what the next evolution in socially competitive greeting is.
Make wookie noises at each other; whoever's is better/louder has won the exchange.
On May 18 2020 00:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 12:16 ASoo wrote: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.
I agree with this, although practically speaking getting a culture to move from one set of norms to a new set of norms all at once is really hard and I have no idea how to do it.
|
Oh god, yes. Give me the wookie yells. The subtle nuance required to be accurate and intimidating yet not so accurate as to come across as a weak nerd, is beautiful.
I think the ultimate breakdown is to just cut to the chase and display your genitals. I feel like I read a book in English classes that referenced that. Oryx and Crake, maybe?
|
Canada11349 Posts
On May 18 2020 05:40 Fleetfeet wrote:
Oh god, yes. Give me the wookie yells. The subtle nuance required to be accurate and intimidating yet not so accurate as to come across as a weak nerd, is beautiful.
I think the ultimate breakdown is to just cut to the chase and display your genitals. I feel like I read a book in English classes that referenced that. Oryx and Crake, maybe?
Sounds silly enough and crass enough for Atwood. And she's Very Serious and so studied in English in Canada. Sounds about right.
I think the disagreement is more or less on the same thing, the only question is if it be suddenly changed over to something else. Or am I wrong? It seems both could agree that in a society that handshakes are the cultural norm, there is meaning in different sorts of handshakes. It's not intrinsic meaning because in a society that bows or hugs and kisses different meanings exist based on how one goes about it.
Well, in the same way in Malaysia I was told to use two hands to handshake and not one and to point with the thumb and not the fore finger because it would be rude. Or which direction (and which country) you hold your forefinger and middle finger could be anything from V for Victory to peace to something rude. Is it arbitrary? Yes, I suppose. But once meaning has been attached in the culture, it's awfully hard to dislodge. You probably wouldn't go around telling people they were wrong for thinking pointing with their forefinger was rude. I guess it's partly the case, given a cultural norm, how does one go about creating a new one because cultural norms are not usually deliberately created but form over time by common practice. Yet with the Corovirus, who knows, maybe it is the catalyst that switches the west over to bowing instead of handshakes. Seems unlikely, but you never know.
Although, it seems to me, that any deliberate attempt to eschew physical contact as a form of greeting post-pandemic flies in the face of the cultural relativism and multiculturalism that is such a dominant ideology in Canada. More of the old melting pot ideology when you consider that the handshake is sort of the middle approach to no contact cultures of bowing and cultures that hug and kiss. and we would favour no contact at all in a post-pandemic world.
|
On May 18 2020 02:36 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 02:18 Zambrah 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 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
If you like hand related communication so much might I suggest exclusively communicating in sign language? 
To xMZ, a germaphobe I am not, I just don't want physical contact with randos generally, (I did once hug a blindfolded man who was offering this weird free blind hug booth to break out of my comfort zone a bit, plus what the guy was doing felt so damn wholesome.
|
On May 18 2020 03:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 18 2020 02:37 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2020 02:30 xM(Z wrote: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. ahahahaha, lol. 1) blind people, that's a straight up loss as far as your argument goes and it's funny; 2) provided links to a study showing people sniffing their hands after a handshake while being totally unaware of doing it; what info they'd gather from it i wouldn't know, but you can go with the researchers theories on chemosignaling. that's 2-0 and all you have is a couple of unfunny jabs at me; i don't know man, i'm good. (the "implications" you're talking about there come from your own insecurities so there, you're on your own) Edit: for the sake of transparency, openness and accountability - i believe you're a slave to your culture and based on that, your argument has no merits. it's not objective enough. The example you gave of blind people is that they could feel if the person they were shaking hands with was cold and, based upon that, offer them a jacket. I can't think of many professional situations where I would bring spare jackets and start going "You feel cold bro, you want a jacket? I have jackets". But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and invited you to tell me about some of those. You declined to do so but are, for some reason, still insisting that blind people feeling how cold someone is is totally a reasonable use of the handshake. the blind people example stood on its own(when your whole argument relied on sight, it was a technicality, it's what made it even funnier); the warm-cold sensation/feeling applies to any human, blind or not.
the jacket was an avenue you could take, if you cared enough, to provide some relief from the cold to a person(maybe a friend, a parent, a grandparent etc...). it was one random example, non-binding, and not meant to be statistically relevant.
an option out of many; you could opt in, or not('CAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE A JACKET ON/WITH YOU). use your inner warmth(if you have any) to achieve that, it's fine by me.
hug them, rub them, do nothing, it doesn't matter. the mere fact that you have info on something is enough for the argument. i didn't have to justify a meaning.
@Dangermousecatdog - i don't know what blind people you have there but here, they'll touch you with both their hands: grip you with one and feel you with the other.
@Fleetfeet: the progress is that there can't be any progress because everyone is defending their culture; it is a discussion about senses and their priority in a culture. there was a time in history when sight was third, after hearing and smell. if living in that time, Kwark would not have defended sight.
there was also a time when senses had a racial/racist bent:
Sensory Hierarchy: In the 19th Century, Lorenz Oken postulated a hierarchy of the senses:
1. European 'eye man'
Asian 'ear man'
Native American 'nose man'
Australian 'tongue man'
African 'skin man'
(Gould, 1985, pp. 204-205, Classen, 93, 405) or socialReasoning Informing the Hierarchy
Anthropologists’ Perspective:
Reluctance of researchers from a variety of fields to go beyond the audio-visual and recover the importance of other senses is due not only to the relative marginalisation of these senses in the modern West, but to the racist tradition of regarding the 'lower senses' as predominating among 'primitive' non-Westeners
Early scholars interested in depicting the 'animalistic' significance of smell
Friedrich Schiller: as long as man is still a savage he enjoys by means of the tactile senses rather than through the higher sense of sight and hearing gl coming up with a new standard ad-hoc and on the spot; you'd need to create and impose a new culture.
|
On May 18 2020 14:14 xM(Z wrote:
gl coming up with a new standard ad-hoc and on the spot; you'd need to create and impose a new culture.
All my best plans start with "Step 1: Become God Emperor of Humanity."
|
Bisutopia19229 Posts
I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality.
https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/
https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/
We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews.
|
United States42539 Posts
On May 21 2020 03:40 BisuDagger wrote:I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/Show nested quote +We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews.
The question was always what marginal information does handshaking give you over a hypothetical alternative greeting done without contact. That’s why the proposed advantages so far have been along the lines of shaking their hand then immediately sniffing yours to get a smell of them and discreetly taking their body temperature so you can offer them a jacket (literally the proposed advantages so far).
Comparing it to no information at all is missing the point. It’s about as useful as the study Kellogg’s did where they discovered that Kellogg’s cereal led to a significant increase in concentration and alertness in children (compared to not feeding them at all).
|
This thread is 4-pages of pure content.
Both sides make valid points. In the original discussion I mentioned that u could gather “a lot of information”. I exaggerated a bit, but my point was that first impressions are very important for some people—in a professional and social setting.
|
On May 21 2020 03:40 BisuDagger wrote:I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/Show nested quote +We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews.
It’s interesting you bring up Sherlock Holmes because I’ve partially written and deleted a post a couple times on this very subject. I think stuff like Sherlock Holmes or House, M.D. is emblematic of (and partially responsible for popularizing) a false conception of intelligence.
Sherlock typically looks at a situation in which other competent people think “these facts are insufficient to determine what happened,” and says something like “this mud pattern on the victim’s calf rubbed off from the killer’s pant leg is produced by a certain kind of tractor. The killer had been on Mr. Johnson’s farm 24 hours prior to the killing!” In other words, intelligent people find certainty where others see uncertainty.
In my experience it is usually the opposite. Competent people look at a set of facts and say “this is what happened,” where a more intelligent person would say “perhaps that’s the most likely scenario, but these other possibilities are also worth exploring.” In other words, intelligent people see the uncertainty of situations others falsely think are certain. Idiots aren’t idiots because they’re uncertain about everything, they’re idiots because they’re so damn certain of everything, even when (especially when?) they’re wrong.
Regarding handshakes specifically: a competent person might shake a possible hire’s hand and think “hmm, kinda weak grip. I think they lack confidence/assertiveness.” And they might think that’s a clever inference. But perhaps, like Mohdoo, they think an overly tight grip conveys insecurity, and didn’t want to come across as having a fragile ego. Or maybe they have an RSI. Or maybe they’re left-handed. The no-nonsense hiring manager who says proudly “I can tell everything I need to about a man from a handshake” thinks he’s showing how smart he is, when really he’s showing his ignorance.
Edit: syntax
|
On May 21 2020 03:52 Emnjay808 wrote:
This thread is 4-pages of pure content.
Both sides make valid points. In the original discussion I mentioned that u could gather “a lot of information”. I exaggerated a bit, but my point was that first impressions are very important for some people—in a professional and social setting.
Well you can read up on it,like when you have a job intervieuw you can google handshakes and then you see how to properly shake hands.
People can learn how to do it properly and sort of fake it. Just like all the other social etiquettes like looking a person in the eyes when having a conversation but not to the point where you start staring at someone. First impressions are important but first impressions can also easily be faked. You need to see a person for a long time before you can see their natural habbits.
Maybe in current situation it is more telling how a person greets you without shaking hands as its not something you can look up on the internet or something that you have learned to do. You have to sort of improvise to make a good impression,read the other person and see what would be appropiate in a certain situation.
|
Bisutopia19229 Posts
On May 21 2020 04:39 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 03:40 BisuDagger wrote:I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews. It’s interesting you bring up Sherlock Holmes because I’ve partially written and deleted a post a couple times on this very subject. I think stuff like Sherlock Holmes or House, M.D. is emblematic of (and partially responsible for popularizing) a false conception of intelligence. Sherlock typically looks at a situation in which other competent people think “these facts are insufficient to determine what happened,” and says something like “this mud pattern on the victim’s calf rubbed off from the killer’s pant leg is produced by a certain kind of tractor. The killer had been on Mr. Johnson’s farm 24 hours prior to the killing!” In other words, intelligent people find certainty where others see uncertainty. In my experience it is usually the opposite. Competent people look at a set of facts and say “this is what happened,” where a more intelligent person would say “perhaps that’s the most likely scenario, but these other possibilities are also worth exploring.” In other words, intelligent people see the uncertainty of situations others falsely think are certain. Idiots aren’t idiots because they’re uncertain about everything, they’re idiots because they’re so damn certain of everything, even when (especially when?) they’re wrong. Regarding handshakes specifically: a competent person might shake a possible hire’s hand and think “hmm, kinda weak grip. I think they lack confidence/assertiveness.” And they might think that’s a clever inference. But perhaps, like Mohdoo, they think an overly tight grip conveys insecurity, and didn’t want to come across as having a fragile ego. Or maybe they have an RSI. Or maybe they’re left-handed. The no-nonsense hiring manager who says proudly “I can tell everything I need to about a man from a handshake” thinks he’s showing how smart he is, when really he’s showing his ignorance. Edit: syntax
I actually agree with what you are saying too and almost didn't make my original post. I think it's fair to believe that some people really can gain knowledge from a hand shake, but it is also rational to say any conclusion garnered from a handshake is ignoring the whole story. Maybe it's best to say that a handshake is an great way to form an hypothesis of a person, and from there everything you do is an attempt to disprove your hypothesis.
|
Bisutopia19229 Posts
On May 21 2020 03:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 03:40 BisuDagger wrote:I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews. The question was always what marginal information does handshaking give you over a hypothetical alternative greeting done without contact. That’s why the proposed advantages so far have been along the lines of shaking their hand then immediately sniffing yours to get a smell of them and discreetly taking their body temperature so you can offer them a jacket (literally the proposed advantages so far). Comparing it to no information at all is missing the point. It’s about as useful as the study Kellogg’s did where they discovered that Kellogg’s cereal led to a significant increase in concentration and alertness in children (compared to not feeding them at all).
As for an alternative to a handshake, I think bowing and touching foreheads can be a very powerful gesture that creates contact and in most cases should yield less germs while also giving the person the ability to sense the temperature of the other person.
|
On May 21 2020 08:02 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 03:50 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2020 03:40 BisuDagger wrote:I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews. The question was always what marginal information does handshaking give you over a hypothetical alternative greeting done without contact. That’s why the proposed advantages so far have been along the lines of shaking their hand then immediately sniffing yours to get a smell of them and discreetly taking their body temperature so you can offer them a jacket (literally the proposed advantages so far). Comparing it to no information at all is missing the point. It’s about as useful as the study Kellogg’s did where they discovered that Kellogg’s cereal led to a significant increase in concentration and alertness in children (compared to not feeding them at all). As for an alternative to a handshake, I think bowing and touching foreheads can be a very powerful gesture that creates contact and in most cases should yield less germs while also giving the person the ability to sense the temperature of the other person.
So instead of a high five it's a high fore?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Bisutopia19229 Posts
On May 21 2020 08:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:02 BisuDagger wrote:On May 21 2020 03:50 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2020 03:40 BisuDagger wrote:I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews. The question was always what marginal information does handshaking give you over a hypothetical alternative greeting done without contact. That’s why the proposed advantages so far have been along the lines of shaking their hand then immediately sniffing yours to get a smell of them and discreetly taking their body temperature so you can offer them a jacket (literally the proposed advantages so far). Comparing it to no information at all is missing the point. It’s about as useful as the study Kellogg’s did where they discovered that Kellogg’s cereal led to a significant increase in concentration and alertness in children (compared to not feeding them at all). As for an alternative to a handshake, I think bowing and touching foreheads can be a very powerful gesture that creates contact and in most cases should yield less germs while also giving the person the ability to sense the temperature of the other person. So instead of a high five it's a high fore? + Show Spoiler +
Zing! Nailed it.
|
On May 21 2020 08:12 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2020 08:02 BisuDagger wrote:On May 21 2020 03:50 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2020 03:40 BisuDagger wrote:I believe that handshaking can give information to people who have a heightened sense of awareness or have trained in learning what handshakes indicate. I know Sherlock Holmes is fictional, but there are people out there who share attributes of his intelligence. Holmes often learns a lot about people through handshakes in his stories. I think there is a time and place for handshakes and that we can participate in them as long as we have regard for when it is appropriate or not to issue such a formality. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/03/can-you-learn-to-dissect-peoples-personalitie/https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/what-can-we-tell-about-someones-personality-f/We examined whether handshakes improved the accuracy with which participants judged a set of targets. Handshakes are interpersonally coordinated behaviors that require motivation and practice to perform well. Therefore conscientiousness may predict how well handshakes are executed. If so, a person’s conscientiousness may be more accurately perceived at zero-acquaintance through a handshake. Individual female and male participants rated the personality of five, same-gender targets after each had introduced herself or himself. Half of the targets offered and shook hands with the participant as part of the introduction, half did not. Extraversion was judged most accurately, regardless of handshake condition. Handshaking moderated impression accuracy of conscientiousness, especially between men, which may explain the importance business professionals place on face-to-face interviews. The question was always what marginal information does handshaking give you over a hypothetical alternative greeting done without contact. That’s why the proposed advantages so far have been along the lines of shaking their hand then immediately sniffing yours to get a smell of them and discreetly taking their body temperature so you can offer them a jacket (literally the proposed advantages so far). Comparing it to no information at all is missing the point. It’s about as useful as the study Kellogg’s did where they discovered that Kellogg’s cereal led to a significant increase in concentration and alertness in children (compared to not feeding them at all). As for an alternative to a handshake, I think bowing and touching foreheads can be a very powerful gesture that creates contact and in most cases should yield less germs while also giving the person the ability to sense the temperature of the other person. So instead of a high five it's a high fore? + Show Spoiler + Zing! Nailed it.
Thank you, thank you  Do people actually touch foreheads when they bow? I would worry that I would accidentally smack someone in the head with my head, since we can't actually see how close our heads are from each other as we bow down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
