• Throughout my life, I have met and become friends with several people who share similar characteristics.

  • I refer to them as “X people.”

  • I want to understand the mechanism and structure behind this.

  • While each “X person” may have various differences when examined in detail, I have a gut feeling that there is a common underlying mechanism that they share (blu3mo).

    • I want to organize what is common and what is not.

Examples:

Characteristics:

  • High communication skills
  • Adaptability?
    • The skill to adjust words and actions to suit the other person
  • Broad coverage range?
  • Ability to take risks?
  • Lack of some ethics
    • Grass (tkgshn)
    • This is related to the ability to take risks, where one perceives something that most people see as worth 10,000 yen as only worth 100 yen (nishio)
      • So, while many people fear a loss of 10,000 yen, becoming nervous or cautious, or regretting when a loss occurs, individuals like this move forward swiftly with expressions like “Let’s give it a try,” “It will work out somehow,” or “Oh well, it didn’t work out!”
      • When cautious individuals see this “Oh well, it didn’t work out!” part, it may appear to them as “lack of ethics.”
      • +1 (blu3mo) (MugiSus) (takker)
      • I might have too much ethics (MugiSus)
      • In a club, there are overly optimistic individuals compared to cautious ones, and the former’s way of speaking and thinking is exactly like this (takker)
  • Really good people
    • While it is possible to explain how each person is a “good person,” I want to abstract that.
      • Is it a slightly forceful altruism with a step further?
  • Tend to have trouble with some people

Hypothesis as of 20240601 (blu3mo)

  • Could it be a person who can unilaterally take significant risks for the benefit/upside of both parties?

    • Such as risks mentioned in Trillion Game Episode 64 ‘10 Yen Investment’
      • There might be some risk, but if things go well, the relationship strengthens
    • Not only doing things that clearly please the other party but also being able to do things like “being very pleased with an 80% chance but disliked with a 20% chance,” maybe?
      • I thought this was quite accurate (MugiSus)
      • In situations where polite conversation would suffice, deliberately taking a challenging approach
      • It might be a kind of audacity or assertiveness (MugiSus)
      • There is an impression that they are good at getting people hooked (they get people hooked very quickly) (MugiSus)
      • The thought process of “being 80% pleased but 20% disliked” may be aiming at the evaluation from others, but it seems like (tkgshn) is not aiming for the evaluation from others (nishio)
        • This might also boil down to feeling like “it’s not a loss of 10,000 yen, but a loss of 100 yen,” where the coefficient for evaluation from others is small
  • While their surface-level communication skills stand out, there seems to be this underlying nature

    • Taking risks —> Gaining experience —> Improving communication skills, like a causal relationship?
    • As skills improve, it becomes easier to take risks, so there seems to be a positive feedback loop here
  • There could be various reasons such as having high damage resistance, having a risk evaluation function that differs from the majority, or having courage (blu3mo)

  • I think this is very close to the concept of Putting One’s Own Money mentioned in Antifragility (blu3mo)

  • Implications of this

    • Recognizing the asymmetry of that risk- It’s not just about having people with high communication skills to make the atmosphere enjoyable and everyone happy.
  • It’s about those people Putting One’s Own Money into it.

From listening to each person’s story, it doesn’t seem like “If you’re an X type of person, all your relationships will go smoothly and you’ll be happy.”