For each question we would take turns answering it. We were allowed to say, "Pass," if the question made us too uncomfortable or, if we couldn't think of a good answer fast enough, we could pass and come back to it after everyone else had answered.
We were already at the level of acquaintances, close enough to be at the same location, hanging out, but I didn't trust any of them yet, and they barely knew me.
I wonder also if it might be commitment to the experience as much as the experience itself that affirms the bond and establishes a platform for ongoing friendship.
Yes? One person in particular, I became friends with them extremely quickly about 2 years ago. There was no contrived questionnaire involved, we just clicked, but after one falling out, the bridge was completely burned.
A common misconception. The root of the phrase "fast friends" is actually steadfast friends. Meaning friends with a strong bond and sense of duty towards each other.
I too had only heard of this study in terms of the romantic partner thing... I guess it makes sense to apply to any friendship.
Edit: The above is all lies! Well, except the meaning. The phoney etymology is lies. See below.
People trying to explain the origin of the phrase “fast friends” point to the word “steadfast” as an example of where this sense of fast persists. You might also notice the same meaning in our words fasten, colorfast, etc.
Having actually looked in to this now with a bit more detail than "google it to check your understanding and look at the first result":
It appears you're right, and "fast" is derived from faest while steadfast is a combination of steade and... fast.
Fast friends is a perfectly cromulent phrase :)
The "fast friends" etymological discussion is a non sequitur.
The flaw in this particular part of the HN mindset is looking at a set of information and thinking you can instantly identify the other person's problem (or that there is one!) and explain/solve it using what you already know.
I think other people might recognize this in their own thinking sometimes too!
I think that's fine, as long as you learn to back down and reconsider the moment someone presents competing information.
You start liberally. When an experience becomes dumb, you abort. TL; DR you meet fun people and make some friends.
The method is hardly fast though - it requires two people to set aside a good chunk of time in a quiet setting to fully experience the gradual escalation of self-disclosure. When trying out this method in real life, what about the fact that you chose that one person to try this with? The reasons behind that choice would contribute much a successful result of this method but still left unexplained.