You don't know the person you're speaking with very well. How can you know how they might choose to use such personal, intimate information?
Some people will absolutely use such personal stuff as ammunition, perhaps at some point in the future when they're angry with you, or feeling vengeful, or stressed. And yes, I've had it happen to me - and to an extent that would boggle people's minds. And it came from a self professed "kind" person, who "only wished good things". Until they got riled up that is, and then anything and everything was verbal fair game.
I think that my point is that the questions in the article don't provide much more ammunition than the "usual" questions, or even other usual things that we usually share.
If they want to hurt you, they can easily laugh at some particularity of your face and that would be very hurtful. Or laugh at you because your favorite movie is Star Wars or because you work in retail. I'm not sure how your favorite gift you've ever received is more personal and intimate than your favorite movie.
Not only the examples of questions in the article are usually as "risky" as "what's your favorite movie", but also you can easily answer these questions in ways that don't provide much ammunition.
"they can easily laugh at some particularity of your face and that would be very hurtful. "
Forgive me, I'm not saying such insults aren't hurtful, but if that's the worst they have to throw at you, then believe it or not, you're getting off relatively lightly.
How about undermining your memories of your not-long-dead parents, based on things you've told them about your childhood? Doing their level best (and they are VERY persuasive, and persistent) to convince you that you were never loved by your mother, extrapolating from stories you have told them, to construct an alternative history that paints your parents (and particularly your mother) as an uncaring, sexually profligate monster.
I have many other examples - but it's Friday evening, and I don't want to put either of us in a low mood. :-) So I'll just wish that no-one who reads this ever runs into someone like that, and wish you the very best of luck!
The majority of the examples have nothing to do with sharing memory of your not-long-dead parents or things like that. And again, usual questions like "what have you done last month" are also as "dangerous", because you may have been to a family funeral.
That's my point: these examples of questions are not different from "usual" questions and don't force anyone to over-share or get personal. It's just you who see an unusual questions and interpolate that you should answer as if you were in therapy with deep and personal answers.
I suppose its a question of balance, but to me, the article is saying that the act of "getting to know" someone, necessarily involves sharing things that are a bit more "real" than the typical glossy surface conversation people tend to have.
I think it's just worth taking a bit of time with these things, doing one's best to make sure such openness is reciprocated, and that the other person's heart is in the right place.
> the act of "getting to know" someone, necessarily involves sharing things that are a bit more "real" than the typical glossy surface conversation people tend to have.
I think that's the point: you want to create an environment where the interlocutor, when they want it, can, if they choose to, do it.
> doing one's best to make sure such openness is reciprocated, and that the other person's heart is in the right place.
How is that not exactly what is done? Are you saying that the article explains that if the other person does not answer, you have to put a gun on their head and scream until they comply?
What kind of socially immature persons are taking so much offense when someone just asks you a slightly personal question in a social meeting where the context is to bond with interlocutors? Just answer politely in a way that show you don't want to go there, and the other person will act accordingly. But pretending that the author of the article is wrong just because they did not jump through hoops to cater your personal snowflakeness seems so closed-minded.
> “It's just you who see an unusual questions and interpolate that you should answer as if you were in therapy with deep and personal answers.”
The article gives the number one reason to ask these kinds of questions as “recall an emotionally charged memory (positive or negative)” and the number one thing to avoid “providing canned responses to questions”; that says to me that you are supposed to answer with deep and personal answers.
If you respond with shallow impersonals, how is that “getting to know someone”?
I would say that recalling a memory does not imply sharing something deep and personal. It's like the difference between these two questions: "what is the answer of 2x+4=12" and "what's your favorite movie". I hope we both agree the first one is bad to get to know someone. It does not mean that you need to get all emotional and cry when answering the second, but you will be more engaged and more interested by the second one. "recalling emotionally charged memory" just mean that you are giving the opportunity for a less boring and a more interesting conversation.
And not canned responses just means that with the usual questions, people answer already prepared answers (because these questions are so well-known that everyone already know what they will answer) while these new questions require some thoughts and more originality because you cannot easily just come up with the same banalities you've heard everywhere before.
Also, I'm not saying the answers will be shallow impersonals, I'm saying that "usual" questions are as dangerous. You can, if you want, answer shallow impersonals to these new questions, the same way you can with the usual questions. You can, if you want, answer deep personals with these new questions, the same way you can with the usual questions. The difference is that 1) the usual questions are too well-known to generate original answers, 2) creating an environment that give the opportunity to discuss of things that will help bonding.
Some people will absolutely use such personal stuff as ammunition, perhaps at some point in the future when they're angry with you, or feeling vengeful, or stressed. And yes, I've had it happen to me - and to an extent that would boggle people's minds. And it came from a self professed "kind" person, who "only wished good things". Until they got riled up that is, and then anything and everything was verbal fair game.