If we must talk about social interactions in terms of science experiments, repeated observations are exactly how one validates a hypothesis.

People-watch at enough weddings, your observations of wedding-goers will become more accurate.

I agree that repeated observation increases the confidence in a hypothesis.

But, only if it's a hypothesis that can be validated in such a way.

From OP

> By internal architecture, what I mean is, when someone talks to me, what I notice first are the supporting beams propping up their words: the cadence and tone and desire behind them. I hear if they are bored, fascinated, wanting validation or connection. I often feel like I can hear how much they like themselves.

The last part (how much they like themselves) is an interpretation or a causal speculation, and something very prone to confirmation bias.

Like, what kind of observed behavior would you make less confident in that?

The article is a mix of very good observations and some more speculative statements, which seems to trigger us, the HN commenter crowd :-)

Yeah a lot of those stood out like thorns to me cause I just don’t agree with her conclusions. Immediately set off some alarm bells i.e. that’s just, like, your opinion, man…

I don’t think the author had a chance to interview each person they observed to see if their worried were right. That does not mean that they could not validate their observations.

You look at patterns and note them. Over years you will see similar patterns, both in people you only observe once, as well as people you get to know better. The ones you get to know better are the ones where you validate your theories. I’m not explaining it very well, but it works. It’s kind of like a sort of sparse sampling or a very long-term Monte Carlo simulation in n-dimensions (that’s an allusion and not a strict explanation)

Anyone who has had to learn social skills/cues as an adult, with analytical faculties in place of a more intuitive understanding, can attest to these seemingly universal patterns. People are ultimately more predictable than they believe themselves to be, and there are clear signs of a rich (evolutionary?) history of habit formation over many generations that in a real sense define "the human condition". One should consider themselves privileged not to have been forced to spend their cognitive efforts on understanding these patterns rather than merely be socialized into them.

Feedback is better, but lack of confirmation didn't stop the Greeks from dreaming up a model of the atom...

From my own experience, with things to do with social interaction some of the most successful people forge on running purely on intuition, they don't burden their minds on things like worrying if their model of wisdom acquisition is deficient of a feedback loop