There's a second problem here. OP is either unaware or doesn't care that they're being filtered by people who are wary of others who knowingly and consistently lie to strangers as the common case of getting to know one another.

I think most adults have a sensible aversion to that. In fact I'd go so far as saying that this common filter is to social cohesion what determinism is to a programming language. I'm happy to have an escape hatch for novel cases, but there are very good reasons for the common case being common.

Edit: clarification

> If they react inappropriately, I'll be cordial and treat them with respect, but I don't want to be friends. If they're way too supportive - the same rule applies.

> Really, I'm just looking for people who won't jump down my throat on a faux pas.

I think when cactacea says "huh, ok", this is neither inappropriate, or "jumping down someone's throat", or being "way too supportive" -- so I think by tb_technical's stated standards, cactacea has "passed" the filter, but is understandably alienated.

Right, but the end goal of the filter isn't just to have a list of passes and fails. The filter exists because OP doesn't want to associate with people who are overly ideological—one way or the other.

If someone silently puts OP in a bucket and never reaches out again, the end goal is still achieved.

> The filter exists because OP doesn't want to associate with people who are overly ideological—one way or the other.

It's like telling people you enjoy Mein Kampf or Das Kapital because you don't want to associate with people who are overly ideological "one way or another." Atlas Shrugged is literally the defining work of a specific ideology. The inconsistency here is hilarious. OP can live in that bucket for all I care.

Or maybe it's perfectly consistent and more honest than OP intended. Randianism is incompatible with society itself; bucket-dwellers rejoice.

Dunno, testing people like that is such an incredibly unhealthy and misguided way to talk to people that I have a very hard time thinking I'm missing out here. Maybe that's just me though

Yeah, it's likely that the two of you wouldn't get along. I think that's the point, though.

They want to associate with people who would respond with curiosity to a controversial statement, you don't want anything to do with someone who likes Atlas Shrugged and you aren't interested to know more. The filter worked and neither of you waste your time!

I think that is a bit of a misunderstanding of where I'm coming from here. Their assumption is that there is a limited subset of reasons why someone would not engage on this specific topic. I pointed out another that they may not have considered since this requires an assumption of intent that is unwarranted and in my opinion, unwise to make.

What they're looking for:

> I know they can either tolerate ideas they hate

Your explanation:

> would note you as an idiot without comment and move on

Maybe I'm also misunderstanding what you're trying to communicate, but it sure sounds to me like your motivations are exactly what they're trying to filter out of their life.

There's a difference in reaction I think. Two people can hear "I love Atlas shrugged" from a new acquaintance and one would start arguing that it's a bad book and anyone who likes it is dumb, etc. Another would say OK, but will think that the speaker is dumb.

Basically there's no way to find if someone would "tolerate ideas they hate" or not if they refuse to engage with the idea altogether. The second guy in my example looks like he would tolerate these ideas but he won't.

I feel like the point here is that there is a sort of silly manipulation that OP is actively conducting on initial conversations with people that only take one data point. I am 100% sure that people are much more complex than an Atlas Shrugged test, very similar to the way that prediction algorithms use multiple attributes. One test or attribute is overly simplistic.

I don't think it requires any special insight to understand that a fantastic approach to meeting people is to simply be genuine and honest.

No! That is not at all what is happening here!

>respond with curiosity to a controversial statement

It's not about being a "controversial statement" (the implication being anyone who reacts against it is a close-minded woke or something like that). It's about "I read it in 8th grade" + "it changed my life and it's still my favourite book". Honestly swap out for any book and it would be equally cringe to boast about how your thinking has not evolved or matured since you were 12.

> you don't want anything to do with someone who likes Atlas Shrugged

No, I don't like anything to do with someone who boasts about being immature in such a crass manner. For that matter, I also don't like anything to do with people who would intentionally lie and manipulate their interlocutor on their first meeting.

Unhealthy for who, exactly? People who I won't get along with?

Isn't it better that we don't interact, in this case? People aren't infinitely malleable - and I have no right to demand behavior from others. So, in my mind, it's better for everyone if we're separated from each other.

Do you hang around people that dislike talking to you? I don't recommend that. I don't think anyone recommends that.

Honest small talk can reveal similar biases without resorting to a too clever by half ruse.

Unfortunately, I have a problem where I love jerks, so we'd probably be good friends.

Perhaps it's that you're filtering out people who don't like to be lied to while those who pass the reverse test don't have problem with lies.

I think the filter is quite effective, I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone who has such a strategy!

How about "tests with an obviously high risk of systematic, invisible false negatives are bad"

Is it a false negative if the point of the test is to filter out people who will immediately assume that anyone who likes Atlas Shrugged is someone that they don't want to know better?

It's not a filter I would choose to use, I'm just saying that OP isn't providing a failure case—the filter is still doing its job there.

Few books are more indicative of people I'd like to filter out immediately than Atlas Shrugged. It's about as close to saying "screw other people" as possible.

Yeah I guess if their filter is literally "will this person stop talking to me if I like Atlas Shrugged" and not actually something like "will this person engage in respectful disagreement with me."

Of course the first test is useless, so I suspect they're trying and failing to produce the second test.

No, I don't see the irony. GP is making a judgement based on a statement that paints him as a crass individual (to say the least). GGP is making a judgement based on how people react to his own statement that is actually made-up to sound crass on purpose.

Yea exactly, it's like "I just met you, and this is crazy, here let me shit-test you maybe". Like running a "reverse a linked list" test on first meeting. There is by definition judgement to it, which, judging strangers, can come off as arrogant / condescending