|
From the Coronavirus and You thread, before being rightfully directed to stop, there was a discussion by several posters on the value of handshaking in a social distancing world and afterwards.
On one hand there appear to be those who beleive that handshaking is indicative of the person or gather a lot of information from someone and those who disagree, that an arbitrary social custom and to beleive so is superstitious.
Another interesting argument was over the value of handshaking as a social custom with different greetings from different cultures being offered as examples as well as it's value in countries where social distancing is maintained.
For my part here is my post to help continue the discussion.
On May 14 2020 23:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 07:48 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 14 2020 04:13 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote: Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. I suppose the question I am asking is: SHOULD handshakes be important to society? Or should archaic bullshit be consciously removed from our day-to-day routines as we learn more about the world we live in? Some people in Italy, Spain and Iran are probably asking themselves if it makes sense to kiss each other constantly now that we see so clearly what a difference that can make with infection. I'm not asking if the current convention is to handshake. I am asking if that is a worthwhile custom that we should try to hold on to. I say toss it in the trash. For me, personally, I like physical forms of contact when I meet and get to know a new person. And a handshake is often indicative of what kind of person you’re dealing with, so I think it definitely has a role in society that cannot just be ignored. Are you serious? Yes, I'm serious. And I thank you for contributing to this thread with a pointless one-liner. Confirming that you are not making some kind of joke is not a pointless one-liner, it is to confirm you are not make a joke. As you confirm that you are not making some kind of a joke, I can say that what you have written is mind boggling bizarre. The only thing you can tell from a handshake is how that person shakes their hand. You form business contracts based on past and current records, not on form of greeting. You choose your boiler repairer/plumber on past recommendations, not on how they shake your hand. Would you say the same about hugging and kissing and bowing, other forms of greetings, or other cultures where the handshake is prefered to be weak? On the topic of changing norms, after SARS, several south east asian countries had a culture change in their method of their communal eating habits. As it is in UK, people don't shake hands but instead the acceptable greeting custom is to awkwardly wave their hands/make humour about it/waggle eyebrows. It's certainly less awkward than shaking hands then washing hands afterwards. Such a change from normal customs is unlikely to pass after social distancing measures are removed, but the idea of changing norms have been seen in the aftereffects of SARS.
|
United States40774 Posts
To be clear, the question is regarding the additional insights that gripping someone’s hand grants over a comparable greeting without skin to skin contact. This means that arguments that rely upon stuff like eye contact for their insights would not apply unless they’re literally engaging in direct physical eye to eye contact with other people. If someone tries to argue that looking is something that can only be done while gripping hands and that eye contact could not be done with an alternative greeting performed at a 6ft distance they’re probably trolling. Consider a hypothetical argument that tongue kissing was a better form of greeting than handshaking because it allows for eye contact and that eye contact really helps get the measure of a person. People would immediately dismiss that argument because while eye contact may be a component of kissing it is not exclusive to kissing and is also present in handshaking. It is therefore irrelevant to the question of kissing over handshaking and handshaking over saluting.
|
hmm, blind people ...
Edit: ok, OK! ... you could tell if one is a cold or warm/hot type of person.
|
I don't see any value from handshaking that couldn't be better attained through something else.
|
United States40774 Posts
On May 15 2020 01:11 xM(Z wrote: hmm, blind people ...
Edit: ok, OK! ... you could tell if one is a cold or warm/hot type of person. Identification of reptilians for visually impaired people is certainly one case of handshaking over saluting at 6ft. But I’m not sure if the applicability to the modern business environment as reptilians are generally highly placed in organizations that are not always open to people with disabilities.
|
New favorite thread on TL
|
Kind of strange and fun subject. I have lived a little over 40 years and in my time the way you greet people has change. When i was young boys and men could not hug each other. But now it is (was until a couple of months ago) normal to greet friends to hugs and a little slap and the back.There was a period with air kisses on each cheek with female friends. We live in a time with lots of change also social and morally. So i find it naturally to change a greeting norm to avoid spreading a virus and endanger other people, actually i find it absurd to do otherwise.
|
On May 15 2020 01:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 01:11 xM(Z wrote: hmm, blind people ...
Edit: ok, OK! ... you could tell if one is a cold or warm/hot type of person. Identification of reptilians for visually impaired people is certainly one case of handshaking over saluting at 6ft. But I’m not sure if the applicability to the modern business environment as reptilians are generally highly placed in organizations that are not always open to people with disabilities. meh, passive-aggressive deflection disguised as a joke ... come on Kwarky; you wanted one and i gave you one.
but, since you're now changing contexts(the value of a handshake within a modern business environment), would information gathered from a handshake that is not immediately or consciously perceived, work?(ex: after a handshake people unconsciously sniff the hand that was shook, especially when it was done so by someone of the opposite sex; chemical communication and all that).
|
Is there really a large difference between shaking hands and not shaking hands when it comes to corona?
Like, if I have it, we're not going to shake hands, but then we'll talk for 10 minutes, and you'll probably get it anyway from the droplets, won't you.
|
United States40774 Posts
On May 15 2020 01:53 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 01:19 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2020 01:11 xM(Z wrote: hmm, blind people ...
Edit: ok, OK! ... you could tell if one is a cold or warm/hot type of person. Identification of reptilians for visually impaired people is certainly one case of handshaking over saluting at 6ft. But I’m not sure if the applicability to the modern business environment as reptilians are generally highly placed in organizations that are not always open to people with disabilities. meh, passive-aggressive deflection disguised as a joke ... come on Kwarky; you wanted one and i gave you one. but, since you're now changing contexts(the value of a handshake within a modern business environment), would information gathered from a handshake that is not immediately or consciously perceived, work?(ex: after a handshake people unconsciously sniff the hand that was shook, especially when it was done so by someone of the opposite sex; chemical communication and all that). I genuinely thought you were suggesting divining useful information from the temperature of a handshake as a joke and that I was playing along with your joke. I read your post as an amusing deconstructive parody intended to show how stupid that kind of analysis would be and I genuinely thought it was a good joke and enjoyed it. I wasn’t mocking you on purpose, I thought we were both mocking the same stupid idea you were jokingly proposing. It never occurred to me that you have some kind of actual system in which the temperature of someone’s hand tells you what kind of person they are.
How would that even work? There are a huge number of personality traits and I doubt you can feel the difference between 35.5 Celsius and 35.6, for example. I thought you were, as a joke, proposing a system of “this person feels warm blooded, probably mammalian” rather than seriously claiming an actual system. Please explain your temperature based system though. Which temperatures mean what, and how do you measure them?
Also stop sniffing people, it’s weird.
|
Not gonna lie, the vegans among my acquaintances mostly have cold hands.
|
That's a lie. Like a real man, you don't know any vegans.
(This is sarcasm btw)
|
I like shaking hands with people i know really well. I like it before informal meetings with people i have to do business with. I don't like it when just showing up to a crowd that i'm gonna hang around with. Is it IMPORTANT? No, probably not. Do i miss it? For sure.
I never was a fan of hugs, a real handshake is/was plenty enough for me.
|
United States40774 Posts
On May 15 2020 02:37 Vivax wrote: Not gonna lie, the vegans among my acquaintances mostly have cold hands. Do you think that if you had to pick the vegans out a crowd of strangers you would have a higher success rate using a handshake than a salute? If so, how highly would you value this knowledge?
|
Norway28257 Posts
I like shaking hands. I like pretty much all types of physical contact actually. Feels like a good way of establishing an 'initial bond with this person' type of deal. If I haven't met someone in a good while I prefer hugging, but handshake is better than just a wave or whatever. It's also nice to establish that whomever I'm meeting isn't armed!
I'm fine not doing it during covid, I'm fine with some other type of greeting instead, but I prefer greetings that involve more physical contact rather than less, because I think physical contact makes people more positively connected with the people they have physical contact with. Maybe it's not a generalization applicable to all of humanity, but I certainly think it applies to myself. So outside pandemic situations I'd rather us evolve to a hug than devolve to a bow.
|
All human contact should start via online means to avoid me having to be in contact with others as much as possible. Plus, imagine all the time we'd save on basic grooming!
|
Outside of the context of a pandemic, how do some of you see approaching more than one person? For instance, you go to a bar and see 6 familiar faces standing in a circle talking. Maybe you give a wave or a greeting to the group as a whole, maybe shake hands and introduce yourself to anyone you don't know. However, I know a lot of people who seem to need to shake each and every hand before engaging in conversation. On one hand (heh) I understand that it might feel odd to be snubbed (some person comes in an shakes 3 hands close to them and gives a nod to you, slightly further away), but the person entering the scenario just didn't want to keep shoving himself between people for the sake of being equally polite.
Is this "imbalanced greeting" something that ever crosses your minds?
EDIT: and for what it's worth I see it similarly to Drone. I think there are definite benefits to physical contact, but can only speak for myself: I love giving a hug to someone I'm excited to see, or happy to have met.
|
On May 15 2020 04:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 02:37 Vivax wrote: Not gonna lie, the vegans among my acquaintances mostly have cold hands. Do you think that if you had to pick the vegans out a crowd of strangers you would have a higher success rate using a handshake than a salute? If so, how highly would you value this knowledge?
I'd start by looking for the pale ones, sniff them a little for signs of incense sticks or pot maybe, like that Biden guy. If the crowd is unresponsive to peace handsigns, a handshake is required, followed by a wide smile to check for fangs.
I'll leave it to you to guess who you found if he has fangs.
|
On May 15 2020 01:17 Nevuk wrote: I don't see any value from handshaking that couldn't be better attained through something else. This.
Also, the non-trivial proportion of the population that in normal times doesn't wash their hands regularly, especially after using the washroom, makes shaking hands extra disgusting. I'd much rather a nod, a bow, or literally any of the other non-physical forms of greeting over a handshake. My hope is that this virus will be the end of handshaking as a societal norm.
On May 15 2020 04:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 02:37 Vivax wrote: Not gonna lie, the vegans among my acquaintances mostly have cold hands. Do you think that if you had to pick the vegans out a crowd of strangers you would have a higher success rate using a handshake than a salute? If so, how highly would you value this knowledge? One never has to pick a vegan out in a crowd. They'll tell you about their veganism before you have any opportunity to try to pick them out.
|
I am still unconvinced that the person claiming that handshakes can tell you what kind of person you are dealing with is trolling. I guess if someone squeezes your hand hard enough to make it hurt you can tell they are an asshole.
|
I am firmly in favor of continuing with the handshake tradition, so I can continue watching Donald Trump assert his superiority over other world leaders.
|
United States40774 Posts
On May 15 2020 10:55 Pangpootata wrote: I am firmly in favor of continuing with the handshake tradition, so I can continue watching Donald Trump assert his superiority over other world leaders. Is this the Trump that held Abe’s hand for 20 seconds, asked Abe to translate what a Japanese photographer had said, and then when Abe translated it to “look at me” spent further painfully awkward moments staring blankly into Abe’s eyes?
|
On May 15 2020 02:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 01:53 xM(Z wrote:On May 15 2020 01:19 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2020 01:11 xM(Z wrote: hmm, blind people ...
Edit: ok, OK! ... you could tell if one is a cold or warm/hot type of person. Identification of reptilians for visually impaired people is certainly one case of handshaking over saluting at 6ft. But I’m not sure if the applicability to the modern business environment as reptilians are generally highly placed in organizations that are not always open to people with disabilities. meh, passive-aggressive deflection disguised as a joke ... come on Kwarky; you wanted one and i gave you one. but, since you're now changing contexts(the value of a handshake within a modern business environment), would information gathered from a handshake that is not immediately or consciously perceived, work?(ex: after a handshake people unconsciously sniff the hand that was shook, especially when it was done so by someone of the opposite sex; chemical communication and all that). I genuinely thought you were suggesting divining useful information from the temperature of a handshake as a joke and that I was playing along with your joke. I read your post as an amusing deconstructive parody intended to show how stupid that kind of analysis would be and I genuinely thought it was a good joke and enjoyed it. I wasn’t mocking you on purpose, I thought we were both mocking the same stupid idea you were jokingly proposing. It never occurred to me that you have some kind of actual system in which the temperature of someone’s hand tells you what kind of person they are. How would that even work? There are a huge number of personality traits and I doubt you can feel the difference between 35.5 Celsius and 35.6, for example. I thought you were, as a joke, proposing a system of “this person feels warm blooded, probably mammalian” rather than seriously claiming an actual system. Please explain your temperature based system though. Which temperatures mean what, and how do you measure them? Also stop sniffing people, it’s weird. one uses jokes on people who can't conceive of certain things if for nothing else than to break the ice. once the audience loosen up, it becomes easier for information to be received and even if it's perceived as a joke, it is progress because the idea gets processed, thought of, rationalized. best way to look at it is: meaningful banter. i mean, one handshake and you can definitely tell of someone has a fever; next step, run dude, just runnnnn ...
as to your query, are you unaware of the divide between people who feel cold to the touch and the ones that feel warm?, or you question whether or not that can be used to derive an useful trait/attribute?. i'll assume the later and just say, manners?, give that dude your jacket. overall, i get from you that you don't value practical attributes. ex: touching(hands here) completes or gives credit to personal credentials: rough hands = craftsman vs soft hands = office rat (when hiring someone for a manual labor job, since everything else can be obfuscated or can/do contain lies(CV)). + Show Spoiler +
|
United States40774 Posts
On May 15 2020 13:23 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 02:31 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2020 01:53 xM(Z wrote:On May 15 2020 01:19 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2020 01:11 xM(Z wrote: hmm, blind people ...
Edit: ok, OK! ... you could tell if one is a cold or warm/hot type of person. Identification of reptilians for visually impaired people is certainly one case of handshaking over saluting at 6ft. But I’m not sure if the applicability to the modern business environment as reptilians are generally highly placed in organizations that are not always open to people with disabilities. meh, passive-aggressive deflection disguised as a joke ... come on Kwarky; you wanted one and i gave you one. but, since you're now changing contexts(the value of a handshake within a modern business environment), would information gathered from a handshake that is not immediately or consciously perceived, work?(ex: after a handshake people unconsciously sniff the hand that was shook, especially when it was done so by someone of the opposite sex; chemical communication and all that). I genuinely thought you were suggesting divining useful information from the temperature of a handshake as a joke and that I was playing along with your joke. I read your post as an amusing deconstructive parody intended to show how stupid that kind of analysis would be and I genuinely thought it was a good joke and enjoyed it. I wasn’t mocking you on purpose, I thought we were both mocking the same stupid idea you were jokingly proposing. It never occurred to me that you have some kind of actual system in which the temperature of someone’s hand tells you what kind of person they are. How would that even work? There are a huge number of personality traits and I doubt you can feel the difference between 35.5 Celsius and 35.6, for example. I thought you were, as a joke, proposing a system of “this person feels warm blooded, probably mammalian” rather than seriously claiming an actual system. Please explain your temperature based system though. Which temperatures mean what, and how do you measure them? Also stop sniffing people, it’s weird. one uses jokes on people who can't conceive of certain things if for nothing else than to break the ice. once the audience loosen up, it becomes easier for information to be received and even if it's perceived as a joke, it is progress because the idea gets processed, thought of, rationalized. best way to look at it is: meaningful banter. i mean, one handshake and you can definitely tell of someone has a fever; next step, run dude, just runnnnn ... as to your query, are you unaware of the divide between people who feel cold to the touch and the ones that feel warm?, or you question whether or not that can be used to derive an useful trait/attribute?. i'll assume the later and just say, manners?, give that dude your jacket. overall, i get from you that you don't value practical attributes. ex: touching(hands here) completes or gives credit to personal credentials: rough hands = craftsman vs soft hands = office rat (when hiring someone for a manual labor job, since everything else can be obfuscated or can/do contain lies(CV)). + Show Spoiler + I don't want to accidentally offend you by assuming you're not being 100% serious just because it sounds odd to me so I'm going to take your response literally.
If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying that the value of the handshake greeting is that you can greet someone, assess their body temperature, and then offer them a jacket if they're below a certain temperature? Does that happen often? How many spare jackets do you take to professional functions where you might meet a number of strangers? Is there an etiquette for subsequently recovering them or are these jackets gifts? Do you have them manufactured with your contact info on them like business cards or are they just whatever surplus jackets you might happen to have?
I apologize for the barrage of questions but your life is just so different from mine. I shake a hand because it's expected that I do so but I've never used it as an opportunity to assess whether an offer of a jacket might be appropriate.
|
On May 15 2020 13:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 13:23 xM(Z wrote:On May 15 2020 02:31 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2020 01:53 xM(Z wrote:On May 15 2020 01:19 KwarK wrote:On May 15 2020 01:11 xM(Z wrote: hmm, blind people ...
Edit: ok, OK! ... you could tell if one is a cold or warm/hot type of person. Identification of reptilians for visually impaired people is certainly one case of handshaking over saluting at 6ft. But I’m not sure if the applicability to the modern business environment as reptilians are generally highly placed in organizations that are not always open to people with disabilities. meh, passive-aggressive deflection disguised as a joke ... come on Kwarky; you wanted one and i gave you one. but, since you're now changing contexts(the value of a handshake within a modern business environment), would information gathered from a handshake that is not immediately or consciously perceived, work?(ex: after a handshake people unconsciously sniff the hand that was shook, especially when it was done so by someone of the opposite sex; chemical communication and all that). I genuinely thought you were suggesting divining useful information from the temperature of a handshake as a joke and that I was playing along with your joke. I read your post as an amusing deconstructive parody intended to show how stupid that kind of analysis would be and I genuinely thought it was a good joke and enjoyed it. I wasn’t mocking you on purpose, I thought we were both mocking the same stupid idea you were jokingly proposing. It never occurred to me that you have some kind of actual system in which the temperature of someone’s hand tells you what kind of person they are. How would that even work? There are a huge number of personality traits and I doubt you can feel the difference between 35.5 Celsius and 35.6, for example. I thought you were, as a joke, proposing a system of “this person feels warm blooded, probably mammalian” rather than seriously claiming an actual system. Please explain your temperature based system though. Which temperatures mean what, and how do you measure them? Also stop sniffing people, it’s weird. one uses jokes on people who can't conceive of certain things if for nothing else than to break the ice. once the audience loosen up, it becomes easier for information to be received and even if it's perceived as a joke, it is progress because the idea gets processed, thought of, rationalized. best way to look at it is: meaningful banter. i mean, one handshake and you can definitely tell of someone has a fever; next step, run dude, just runnnnn ... as to your query, are you unaware of the divide between people who feel cold to the touch and the ones that feel warm?, or you question whether or not that can be used to derive an useful trait/attribute?. i'll assume the later and just say, manners?, give that dude your jacket. overall, i get from you that you don't value practical attributes. ex: touching(hands here) completes or gives credit to personal credentials: rough hands = craftsman vs soft hands = office rat (when hiring someone for a manual labor job, since everything else can be obfuscated or can/do contain lies(CV)). + Show Spoiler + I don't want to accidentally offend you by assuming you're not being 100% serious just because it sounds odd to me so I'm going to take your response literally. If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying that the value of the handshake greeting is that you can greet someone, assess their body temperature, and then offer them a jacket if they're below a certain temperature? Does that happen often? How many spare jackets do you take to professional functions where you might meet a number of strangers? Is there an etiquette for subsequently recovering them or are these jackets gifts? Do you have them manufactured with your contact info on them like business cards or are they just whatever surplus jackets you might happen to have? I apologize for the barrage of questions but your life is just so different from mine. I shake a hand because it's expected that I do so but I've never used it as an opportunity to assess whether an offer of a jacket might be appropriate. your initial query was on the existence of a tell but now are questioning the meaning/the application of it = progress.
you asses the sensation of cold - warm not body temperature per say(but that too can be handstimated; the one degree temp. tolerance between the lower and upper normal is quantifiable by a touch)
if you were to understand correctly, you'd realize that based on a tell, you cold or couldn't have a reaction to it. you could offer them a condom for all i care, that would work too, right?; or be an asshole and do nothing. (or who knows, maybe you have temperature measuring lasers shooting out of your eyes ...)
|
On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote: Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. On May 14 2020 04:13 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote: Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. I suppose the question I am asking is: SHOULD handshakes be important to society? Or should archaic bullshit be consciously removed from our day-to-day routines as we learn more about the world we live in? Some people in Italy, Spain and Iran are probably asking themselves if it makes sense to kiss each other constantly now that we see so clearly what a difference that can make with infection. I'm not asking if the current convention is to handshake. I am asking if that is a worthwhile custom that we should try to hold on to. I say toss it in the trash. For me, personally, I like physical forms of contact when I meet and get to know a new person. And a handshake is often indicative of what kind of person you’re dealing with, so I think it definitely has a role in society that cannot just be ignored. On May 14 2020 11:36 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 09:16 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 07:48 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 14 2020 04:13 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote: Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. I suppose the question I am asking is: SHOULD handshakes be important to society? Or should archaic bullshit be consciously removed from our day-to-day routines as we learn more about the world we live in? Some people in Italy, Spain and Iran are probably asking themselves if it makes sense to kiss each other constantly now that we see so clearly what a difference that can make with infection. I'm not asking if the current convention is to handshake. I am asking if that is a worthwhile custom that we should try to hold on to. I say toss it in the trash. For me, personally, I like physical forms of contact when I meet and get to know a new person. And a handshake is often indicative of what kind of person you’re dealing with, so I think it definitely has a role in society that cannot just be ignored. Are you serious? Yes, I'm serious. And I thank you for contributing to this thread with a pointless one-liner. What other arbitrary social customs are you superstitious about? I'm not superstitious about any arbitrary social customs. Let me copy in and echo Seeker's sentiments. A handshake isn't going to give you a ton of information, but it does give you an idea of "what kind of person you're dealing with." It's in the realm of greeting, body language, facial expression, vocal inflection, manner of dress. These aren't the kind of social and cultural cues that you can debate in black-and-white terms.
And honestly, I think the superstition/obvious joke is just trolls doing their schtick. Like obviously, you don't have to kiss or hug in a relationship when you really think about it etc etc.
|
United States40774 Posts
On May 15 2020 14:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote: Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 04:13 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote: Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. I suppose the question I am asking is: SHOULD handshakes be important to society? Or should archaic bullshit be consciously removed from our day-to-day routines as we learn more about the world we live in? Some people in Italy, Spain and Iran are probably asking themselves if it makes sense to kiss each other constantly now that we see so clearly what a difference that can make with infection. I'm not asking if the current convention is to handshake. I am asking if that is a worthwhile custom that we should try to hold on to. I say toss it in the trash. For me, personally, I like physical forms of contact when I meet and get to know a new person. And a handshake is often indicative of what kind of person you’re dealing with, so I think it definitely has a role in society that cannot just be ignored. Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 11:36 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 09:16 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 07:48 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 14 2020 04:13 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote: Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. I suppose the question I am asking is: SHOULD handshakes be important to society? Or should archaic bullshit be consciously removed from our day-to-day routines as we learn more about the world we live in? Some people in Italy, Spain and Iran are probably asking themselves if it makes sense to kiss each other constantly now that we see so clearly what a difference that can make with infection. I'm not asking if the current convention is to handshake. I am asking if that is a worthwhile custom that we should try to hold on to. I say toss it in the trash. For me, personally, I like physical forms of contact when I meet and get to know a new person. And a handshake is often indicative of what kind of person you’re dealing with, so I think it definitely has a role in society that cannot just be ignored. Are you serious? Yes, I'm serious. And I thank you for contributing to this thread with a pointless one-liner. What other arbitrary social customs are you superstitious about? I'm not superstitious about any arbitrary social customs. Let me copy in and echo Seeker's sentiments. A handshake isn't going to give you a ton of information, but it does give you an idea of "what kind of person you're dealing with." It's in the realm of greeting, body language, facial expression, vocal inflection, manner of dress. These aren't the kind of social and cultural cues that you can debate in black-and-white terms. And honestly, I think the superstition/obvious joke is just trolls doing their schtick. Like obviously, you don't have to kiss or hug in a relationship when you really think about it etc etc. Do you think you could still get cultural cues from a more hygienic gesture? Any argument to keep a handshake over an alternative must be rooted in the marginal advantages of the handshake over the alternative.
|
On May 15 2020 05:18 NrG.Bamboo wrote: Outside of the context of a pandemic, how do some of you see approaching more than one person? For instance, you go to a bar and see 6 familiar faces standing in a circle talking. Maybe you give a wave or a greeting to the group as a whole, maybe shake hands and introduce yourself to anyone you don't know. However, I know a lot of people who seem to need to shake each and every hand before engaging in conversation. On one hand (heh) I understand that it might feel odd to be snubbed (some person comes in an shakes 3 hands close to them and gives a nod to you, slightly further away), but the person entering the scenario just didn't want to keep shoving himself between people for the sake of being equally polite.
Is this "imbalanced greeting" something that ever crosses your minds?
EDIT: and for what it's worth I see it similarly to Drone. I think there are definite benefits to physical contact, but can only speak for myself: I love giving a hug to someone I'm excited to see, or happy to have met. You are still shaking hands over in USA? Bars are still open? Anyways when meeting people just raise your hand/ wave/ say hello/ tilt head/nod/raise eyebrows/smile. Make a joke about not shaking hands. Why act like there is only one way to greet someone and it's with a handshake?
|
On May 15 2020 22:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 05:18 NrG.Bamboo wrote: Outside of the context of a pandemic, how do some of you see approaching more than one person? For instance, you go to a bar and see 6 familiar faces standing in a circle talking. Maybe you give a wave or a greeting to the group as a whole, maybe shake hands and introduce yourself to anyone you don't know. However, I know a lot of people who seem to need to shake each and every hand before engaging in conversation. On one hand (heh) I understand that it might feel odd to be snubbed (some person comes in an shakes 3 hands close to them and gives a nod to you, slightly further away), but the person entering the scenario just didn't want to keep shoving himself between people for the sake of being equally polite.
Is this "imbalanced greeting" something that ever crosses your minds?
EDIT: and for what it's worth I see it similarly to Drone. I think there are definite benefits to physical contact, but can only speak for myself: I love giving a hug to someone I'm excited to see, or happy to have met. You are still shaking hands over in USA? Bars are still open? Anyways when meeting people just raise your hand/ wave/ say hello/ tilt head/nod/raise eyebrows/smile. Make a joke about not shaking hands. Why act like there is only one way to greet someone and it's with a handshake? No, I'm only speaking hypothetically and outside of our current situation.
|
Well, I would assume that whatever your local cultural greeting is, you will continue to use it after social distancing has ended, outside of a complete culture change. Even if your local bar culture has changed to not shaking hands, there are plenty of pre-existing social greetings without shaking hands which are part of current socially accceptable interaction to enable the flow of social interaction. That guy who needs to shake hands will adapt like everyone else to the cultural norm otherwise he will display signals that he cannot conform to social norms.
|
The one thing I take from handshakes is to know if the guy is insecure or not. If his handshake is too firm, he's extremely insecure. I know to be delicate with him and try to never make him think I am trying to take control of anything. If I need to take control, i do it delicately and try to make it seem like I am not. If you can convince an overly firm handshake guy they are being a big contributor, they will generally not make a stink.
However, I would say it is always pretty clear WITHOUT a handshake if that is true or not. A handshake gives me information, but that information is not unique. I get that information in lots of other ways.
I can't imagine a world where I get something out of a handshake that I wouldn't from a brief conversation.
|
On May 15 2020 14:26 Danglars wrote: Let me copy in and echo Seeker's sentiments. A handshake isn't going to give you a ton of information, but it does give you an idea of "what kind of person you're dealing with." It's in the realm of greeting, body language, facial expression, vocal inflection, manner of dress. These aren't the kind of social and cultural cues that you can debate in black-and-white terms.
They absolutely are. A whole lot of things that humans have chalked up to "intuition" have proven to be meaningless bullshit in the past few decades when put up to rigorous objective analysis. The human brain is extremely good at assigning patterns and confirming biases based on random noise that has no actual value.
|
On May 16 2020 02:02 Mohdoo wrote: The one thing I take from handshakes is to know if the guy is insecure or not. If his handshake is too firm, he's extremely insecure. I know to be delicate with him and try to never make him think I am trying to take control of anything. If I need to take control, i do it delicately and try to make it seem like I am not. If you can convince an overly firm handshake guy they are being a big contributor, they will generally not make a stink.
However, I would say it is always pretty clear WITHOUT a handshake if that is true or not. A handshake gives me information, but that information is not unique. I get that information in lots of other ways.
I can't imagine a world where I get something out of a handshake that I wouldn't from a brief conversation. The thing is that you can create a stronger impression by piling these things up, especially in a first meeting. You can get an impression of insecurity in a dialogue, but if the person you meet has a body language that speaks of confidence and speaks confidently it leaves a much stronger impression than if one of the two point towards insecurity. If you're in a meeting with 20 people and the person at the end of table didn't speak but still looks confident, looked you in the eye during the greeting and had a firm but not too firm handshake you are likely to think that they are in charge.
When meeting someone humans instinctively check body language and handshake is one way of asserting confidence, which we generally associate with competence, so it's useful if you want people to trust you. It's the reason politicians, swindlers and CEOs train these things.
Generally I like handshakes as an easy fairly natural way of establishing mutual physical contact, which creates trust. Obviously not during Corona. But I find it less awkward than French kissing or hugging f.e..
|
On May 16 2020 03:35 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 14:26 Danglars wrote: Let me copy in and echo Seeker's sentiments. A handshake isn't going to give you a ton of information, but it does give you an idea of "what kind of person you're dealing with." It's in the realm of greeting, body language, facial expression, vocal inflection, manner of dress. These aren't the kind of social and cultural cues that you can debate in black-and-white terms.
They absolutely are. A whole lot of things that humans have chalked up to "intuition" have proven to be meaningless bullshit in the past few decades when put up to rigorous objective analysis. The human brain is extremely good at assigning patterns and confirming biases based on random noise that has no actual value. This is about as effective as saying people with high trust in the universal applicability of rigorous objective analysis will always fail to appreciate the social practices of society and the cohesion that an evolving culture presents. Provide a man that thinks it’s all meaningless bullshit anyways a hammer, and he will strike down every practice as a random noise with no actual value as just some collection of nails.
So yes, let’s start with the premise that it’s all meaningless bullshit, just as soon as you start with the premise that’s it’s all insanely valuable and is disregarded at your peril. It’ll all end in fun places, just like the perfect high-five.
|
On May 16 2020 04:16 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2020 02:02 Mohdoo wrote: The one thing I take from handshakes is to know if the guy is insecure or not. If his handshake is too firm, he's extremely insecure. I know to be delicate with him and try to never make him think I am trying to take control of anything. If I need to take control, i do it delicately and try to make it seem like I am not. If you can convince an overly firm handshake guy they are being a big contributor, they will generally not make a stink.
However, I would say it is always pretty clear WITHOUT a handshake if that is true or not. A handshake gives me information, but that information is not unique. I get that information in lots of other ways.
I can't imagine a world where I get something out of a handshake that I wouldn't from a brief conversation. The thing is that you can create a stronger impression by piling these things up, especially in a first meeting. You can get an impression of insecurity in a dialogue, but if the person you meet has a body language that speaks of confidence and speaks confidently it leaves a much stronger impression than if one of the two point towards insecurity. If you're in a meeting with 20 people and the person at the end of table didn't speak but still looks confident, looked you in the eye during the greeting and had a firm but not too firm handshake you are likely to think that they are in charge. When meeting someone humans instinctively check body language and handshake is one way of asserting confidence, which we generally associate with competence, so it's useful if you want people to trust you. It's the reason politicians, swindlers and CEOs train these things. Generally I like handshakes as an easy fairly natural way of establishing mutual physical contact, which creates trust. Obviously not during Corona. But I find it less awkward than French kissing or hugging f.e..
All of this is true and I agree. When I do a pros and cons list, I still think it is worth getting rid of. I just think the unique individual contribution is insufficiently high to justify.
My humanity patch notes would remove hand shakes and replace it with interchangeable salute or Japanese bow
|
We should follow the canine example and replace handshakes with mutual butt sniffing.
Change my mind.
|
On May 16 2020 06:35 ASoo wrote: We should follow the canine example and replace handshakes with mutual butt sniffing.
Change my mind. Our sense of smell isn't as well developed. We wouldn't get any useful information by doing this.
I hope this was enough to change your mind, let me know if not though
|
I stand corrected. Thank you for showing me the light.
Back to eyeball licking it is.
|
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.
|
In a situation where social distancing is required, then obviously greetings and farewells shouldn't have any physical contact. Bows, hand-waves, smiles, nods, other facial and body language, and verbal language would all be sensible alternatives.
Those are all also perfectly fine in situations where social distancing is not required, but in those situations, I see nothing wrong with additionally including typical handshakes for meeting someone, and hugs and kisses for more personal, intimate greetings and farewells. I don't think it makes much sense to permanently ban any physical touching as a result of our global pandemic, as long as both parties are okay with the physical touching. It absolutely depends on the individuals.
|
United States40774 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 States40774 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 States40774 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 States40774 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 States40774 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.
|
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 States40774 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?
|
Canada10904 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."
|
Bisutopia19032 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 States40774 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.
|
Bisutopia19032 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.
|
Bisutopia19032 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 +
|
Bisutopia19032 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.
|
On May 21 2020 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:12 BisuDagger wrote: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.
This seems like very fertile ground for people with aggressive handshakes.
"No! Last time Chad came over he nearly knocked out 3 people and gave Glen a concussion introducing himself!"
|
Bisutopia19032 Posts
They do. It's all about how confidently can you bring your head in to contact with theirs, but leave with just a gentle touch occuring. It's quite an art form. Though with women and small children it's more of a lingering touch to show endearment.
|
On May 21 2020 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2020 08:12 BisuDagger wrote: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. This seems like very fertile ground for people with aggressive handshakes. "No! Last time Chad came over he nearly knocked out 3 people and gave Glen a concussion introducing himself!"
Two alpha males stare at each other from across the room, and lower their heads as they assume the position. They start to kick their feet backwards off the ground, like bulls preparing to charge. It may seem odd and unnecessary, but in the year 2030, this game of chicken is how Americans say hello.
On May 21 2020 08:29 BisuDagger wrote: They do. It's all about how confidently can you bring your head in to contact with theirs, but leave with just a gentle touch occuring. It's quite an art form. Though with women and small children it's more of a lingering touch to show endearment.
That's very interesting to me... I've bowed in deference before, but from a safe enough distance where there was no physical contact. I guess both touching and not touching can be seen as respectful, given the context and the individuals.
|
On May 21 2020 08:02 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 04:39 ChristianS 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. 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. First impressions are first impressions and first impressions do no more than to confirm the biases of the person who is taking that impression. The information imparted is essentially random noise. A few militaries used psych evaluations in team building excercises back when it was all the rage to determine who will be best fit for leadership postions and the like and predict those who did best in the evaluations will be promoted furthest, and then came back years later for confirmation and found out it was all a load of bollocks. So it is with handshakes; they tell you nothing beyond perhaps handshaker's ability to fit with local cultural norms. You will tell more about a person from asking their attitude towards handshaking, than shaking their hands.
|
On May 21 2020 08:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2020 08:12 BisuDagger wrote: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. This seems like very fertile ground for people with aggressive handshakes. "No! Last time Chad came over he nearly knocked out 3 people and gave Glen a concussion introducing himself!" Two alpha males stare at each other from across the room, and lower their heads as they assume the position. They start to kick their feet backwards off the ground, like bulls preparing to charge. It may seem odd and unnecessary, but in the year 2030, this game of chicken is how Americans say hello. Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:29 BisuDagger wrote: They do. It's all about how confidently can you bring your head in to contact with theirs, but leave with just a gentle touch occuring. It's quite an art form. Though with women and small children it's more of a lingering touch to show endearment. That's very interesting to me... I've bowed in deference before, but from a safe enough distance where there was no physical contact. I guess both touching and not touching can be seen as respectful, given the context and the individuals. I've got nothing to add but just wanted to say that the first part of your post here made me laugh
|
On May 22 2020 21:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:02 BisuDagger wrote:On May 21 2020 04:39 ChristianS 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. 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. First impressions are first impressions and first impressions do no more than to confirm the biases of the person who is taking that impression. The information imparted is essentially random noise. A few militaries used psych evaluations in team building excercises back when it was all the rage to determine who will be best fit for leadership postions and the like and predict those who did best in the evaluations will be promoted furthest, and then came back years later for confirmation and found out it was all a load of bollocks. So it is with handshakes; they tell you nothing beyond perhaps handshaker's ability to fit with local cultural norms. You will tell more about a person from asking their attitude towards handshaking, than shaking their hands. I've done enough handshakes in professional contexts to know that I really don't learn anything about people from the experience. That's not a thing. When people talk about what you can learn from a handshake it reminds me 100% of archaic dating "advice" that tries to give you surefire ways of interpreting vague signals that really don't necessarily mean anything. I never found any of this social wizardry to be useful, in fact it was always the opposite. As soon as I stopped caring about what things are "supposed" to mean, I started getting much more useful information in my own way.
I've never taken a handshake to indicate anything other than a willingness/ability to conform to the accepted professional environment.
|
I've done enough handshakes in professional contexts to know that I really don't learn anything about people from the experience. That's not a thing. When people talk about what you can learn from a handshake it reminds me 100% of archaic dating "advice" that tries to give you surefire ways of interpreting vague signals that really don't necessarily mean anything. I never found any of this social wizardry to be useful, in fact it was always the opposite. As soon as I stopped caring about what things are "supposed" to mean, I started getting much more useful information in my own way.
I've never taken a handshake to indicate anything other than a willingness/ability to conform to the accepted professional environment.
That is because you don't know how to interpret it. Fortunately I have a course for only $9.99 that will give you valuable insights into what various handshakes mean. For only $5.00 more I can teach you how to make your handshake exude confidence and leadership. Participants in my course have gone onto become ceos, marketing gurus, and social influencers.
|
I have a rough conception of what’s happening in your head when you make some incidental observation about someone (e.g. how they shake your hand) and draw apparently-irrelevant conclusions about them (e.g. their personality, work ethic, intelligence, etc.). It rests on areas of AI that I’m not especially informed on, so someone else here might be able to correct me where I’m fucking it up, but here goes:
Your brain is basically a big neural network. You can train a neural network on a set of observations and associated information with each observation; then you can ask it for an algorithm to take new observations and spit out predicted information about them. So if you meet 1000 people, shake all their hands, and later determine that 500 of them were nice and 500 of them were assholes, you can then shake a new person’s hand and ask your brain “based on the last 1000 handshakes, is this person nice or an asshole?”
The trouble is, the algorithm is a black box. You don’t really know what aspects of the observation are being used or how; you just know you shake a new person’s hand and your brain spits out “nice” or “asshole.” And unless you’re very careful about how you use a neural network, it’s very common for the algorithm predictions to be junk outside the training set because it’s sort of “p-hacking” its algorithm to rely on peculiarities of the training set that don’t generalize to the larger population. Maybe a lot of the people you decided were assholes happened to go to a rival high school, and your brain’s algorithm winds up relying heavily on whether the person is wearing that high school’s colors. Then you go to college and find yourself with an irrational dislike of anybody wearing blue and gold or w/e.
|
On May 22 2020 22:28 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 08:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2020 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2020 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2020 08:12 BisuDagger wrote: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. This seems like very fertile ground for people with aggressive handshakes. "No! Last time Chad came over he nearly knocked out 3 people and gave Glen a concussion introducing himself!" Two alpha males stare at each other from across the room, and lower their heads as they assume the position. They start to kick their feet backwards off the ground, like bulls preparing to charge. It may seem odd and unnecessary, but in the year 2030, this game of chicken is how Americans say hello. On May 21 2020 08:29 BisuDagger wrote: They do. It's all about how confidently can you bring your head in to contact with theirs, but leave with just a gentle touch occuring. It's quite an art form. Though with women and small children it's more of a lingering touch to show endearment. That's very interesting to me... I've bowed in deference before, but from a safe enough distance where there was no physical contact. I guess both touching and not touching can be seen as respectful, given the context and the individuals. I've got nothing to add but just wanted to say that the first part of your post here made me laugh
Thank you
|
Handshakes are sneaking back into my life, but so far only with people I know. It is a very nice way to acknowledge the presence of others, like a little "dance" if you will. Nothing sexual, just a gentle contact and movement. They simply work.
I am fairly confident they are here to stay.
|
|
|
|