But that’s not how it would go in a situation where you just don’t make conversation. Or are you thinking they really want to have a conversation with you and are just thinking “oh gosh I’m so bummed that random person didn’t talk to me”? I don’t understand
Ok then how about it’s no money, but they have to hear about how they didn’t get the money, and so they feel kinda bummed out, if they don’t win.
But that’s not how it would go in a situation where you just don’t make conversation. Or are you thinking they really want to have a conversation with you and are just thinking “oh gosh I’m so bummed that random person didn’t talk to me”? I don’t understand
Your position seems to be that there is no risk so small that it wouldn’t override a potential win.
I am trying to point out the absurdity of this position.
If you can’t see the absurdity of this position, even with the silly parameters on it, then I’ll just ask this direct question:
How do you justify ever talking to a stranger? Surely the risk of a negative outcome is just too great, because there will always be some risk.
If this is not your position; state your position in similar terms.
I generally don’t chitchat with strangers. It doesn’t cost anything in that situation not to talk, there’s no negative to it.
Except on the internet.
There is opportunity cost.
But just to be clear, your position is “don’t be the first one talking if talking to strangers, unless absolutely necessary, it’s too risky.”?
If this is not your position, please state it again, because this is how I read the comment I’m replying to.
In either case, please state what you think “the negative” that you are risking, or risking for a person on their behalf.