* Given them your attention and listen closely. Ask considerate questions.
* Practice empathy. People usually don't want advice, they most often simply want someone else to understand their experiences. If they are open to advice and you have a tidbit of wisdom, share it kindly and with obvious humility
* Channel your optimistic/zen side. All bad experiences are temporary, we can't change the past, and our mindset greatly affects how we actually feel about any scenario. The future is in front of us, how do we want to proceed? These attitudes can be contagious as well.
* Try to find common ground, even if you don't share their viewpoint. With a stranger, there isn't usually a foundation of rapport and mutual understanding to support adversarial debate.
* If you strongly disagree, respectfully acknowledge what they have said, and then shift to a more amicable topic (unless they specifically ask for your view)
* Pay close attention to body language and other subtle cues. Listen to what is not being said. Keep in mind all relevant context. The specific words that are spoken usually reflect a small portion of the actual information being communicated.
Practice, practice, practice. These skills come naturally for some, but we can all use improvement. Being actively mindful of these aspects of communication/social interaction is valuable for anyone.
> * Practice empathy. People usually don't want advice, they most often simply want someone else to understand their experiences. If they are open to advice and you have a tidbit of wisdom, share it kindly and with obvious humility
This is a thing I sometimes crave... People are very eager to teach you lessons and give one advice after another, when you open yourself up even the tiniest bit, if your life is even slightly unconventional. So annoying; if I'm telling my story, it's because I want to share it and lighten my heart, and I'm not stupid, I know what you tell me already, and a bit more, given the topic is my life. I'm an aspiring researcher in humanities, but I know me some programming and a couple foreign languages. Every time the topic of future comes up, and if I make the stupid mistake of talking about my worries and plans, I'm bombarded with suggestions on how to put my skills to use, how to become rich, how I should just quit this laziness, this idleness and spend my time doing something useful. The best thing to do after listening to someone sharing their problems, worries etc. is either to make them speak more, or to nod your head, and pass on to some other topic, related or not. And if one really wants to help, just ask whether they want you to help and if yes how to help.
I was an idiot who was on the advice giving side. Looking back I can see how I was a really shitty friend. I am glad to come across these types of topics so that the person opening up to me can have someone who listens without jumping in with advice. Please forgive us idiots who don’t know any better.
Don't be so harsh on yourself. Frankly I too am sometimes one of those idiots. The urge to advice someone, especially if you think you know the domain well, is very hard to resist. While I always was annoyed by advices (THB also when I needed them the most), it's rather late when I realised how much I was guilty of giving them invasively. Since then I'm actively avoiding giving advices unless asked.
I think using your analytical mind to affect your attention and behavior in social situations isn't the best way to learn social skills, because it's too easy to come across as creepy if you don't have the right "feel" for doing these things. My own approach is more about unlocking another part of your mind, to which socializing makes sense natively. It's a bit more inwardly focused, but still supposed to be used in social situations, so you can see the automatic change in your outward behavior. It goes like this:
Learn to notice and nudge the emotional state that your entire body is actually projecting at any given moment, using slow breaths as a focus.
I think these techniques are initially analytical in nature, and may seem forced, but eventually it becomes habit, and you don't have to think about it on a moment-to-moment basis.
Your last sentence is interesting, but quite a cliffhanger. Can you expand upon your technique or point us to some resources?
I'm not even sure it will work for anyone besides me...
The overall approach was inspired by the book "Drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwards. It starts with some simple exercises that don't teach you to draw per se, but get you into a strange inner state where drawing makes sense. (Repeating real world curves and angles with your pencil without looking at the paper, redrawing a sketch upside down, etc.) It works incredibly well - an adult with zero artistic skill could do these exercises for a couple hours and get a strong sense of "holy shit, I can draw anything I want!" It really feels like you're unlocking a part of your brain that was always there. And the upgrade sticks with you for life.
The point is that I think many skills, especially those with a bimodal separation (you either get it or don't), are really about your inner state. The right inner state is hard to teach, but it can be taught, and then you gain the skill quickly and almost miraculously. For example, all those infuriating people telling you to "just be yourself" are referring to some kind of change in inner state, but haven't found the key to communicating it. For drawing, Betty Edwards has found the key. For social skills, no one has found the key yet. I'm skeptical that my approach will work for everyone, but I'm certain that self-experimenting on your inner state when around other people is more fruitful than trying to force things with them (bravely approach! pay attention! ask them about their job!) It might take a long time though. For me it took years, and only after I stumbled into the right state a few times by accident.
===
Anyway, if you want to follow me, here's what I would suggest. All training must be done while you're around other people, and the first step is noticing just how much information you're sending out. Many nerdy folks don't even fully register their own mood - how good or bad they feel at any given moment - even when everyone around them can see it plain as day. To me it felt at first like a firehose of information, much of it negative, that I couldn't help but blast at whoever was close. (Not through words! Through my pose, my eyes, etc.)
One way to notice it is by contrast. Watch a clip by Sean Paul, and imagine that everyone around is constantly comparing you to him. That's the firehose. It's very hard to change, because it feels like "water", a part of what you are. And it's hard to accept that the true reason people don't flock to you is your low-grade depression. It feels unfair! But becoming hyper-aware of it is the first step you must take.
When I'm socializing, the focus of my mind is being aware of that firehose of information. It's easy enough to redirect when it feels nasty (just turn it away from other people). And if I deliberately ignore what I want from other people, and focus entirely on making my firehose a bit less off-putting to them, I can slowly affect change. Breathe out, breathe in slowly, don't lose touch with the immovable object, and very carefully make it move.
(Not the comment author) I think the general direction is toward somatic approaches like Alexander technique or Feldenkrais method. They do not seem exactly what the comment author meant, but are indeed similar.
The article mentions getting someone to like you unnaturally fast to divulge information.
This happened to me once. I was a character reference for a friend who needed security clearance for a position in the UK, and they sent a a guy to come and interview me. About 45 minutes later I came out of the room and quickly realised I'd been mined for information (all good, luckily for my friend). While it was happening it felt like we were having just a nice chat. Afterwards I was totally exhausted. A very strange experience.
They are professionals with a single goal in mind and years of combined training and practice to learn how to acheive it. If you think you can somehow talk them out of doing what they came to do and not put yourself in a worse position than what you began with [1], you are either a very good criminal lawyer or are being naïve.
[1] e.g. by making a false statement in violation of 18 USC 1001, and trust me, they will be counting on it and have planned for it)
Correct. Do not talk to law enforcement without legal representation present. If the FBI shows up at your door with a search warrant your first action is to take the warrant and call an attorney.
Is it ever a good idea to speak WITH an attorney present? I’m serious. I see movies where people talk to law with attorney and wonder if they are actually required to? Could they not just say nothing even with a lawyer?
They're good, but the transcripts really demonstrate just how hopelessly naive RW is. She printed classified docs on her work printer, emailed them from her work email and then confessed to FBI agents without consulting a lawyer.
It doesn't excuse what she did, of course, but it's clear she didn't grasp the gravity of her actions.
Maybe it’s because I’ve never been in that position, but I simply do not understand why you wouldn’t ask to have an attorney present for the questioning.
I feel like this is something people have to consciously practice and remind themselves of.
I work for a civil liberties organization. Yet a few years ago two patrol officers in a train station in New York managed to interrogate me using a classic "good cop, bad cop" method -- about photographs that I was taking. I felt especially weird about this afterward because I had been reading news articles about people's legal right to take photographs in public places.
Apparently, my theoretical desire to assert my rights in an interaction with law enforcement somehow wasn't borne out in practice, and their interrogation methods are incredibly effective.
One thing I found striking when looking briefly at the linked transcript of the interview with Reality Winner is her concern for her pets. Making sure that her pets are properly taken care of is something that she needs from the agents and that's outside of her control in this situation. They don't explicitly bargain about this, but it seems like it's one big reason that she wants them to see her as cooperative.
> Making sure that her pets are properly taken care of is something that she needs from the agents and that's outside of her control in this situation.
Exactly, and she knows that pets frequently get shot in situations like the one she was in (although to be fair, that's usually with city and state police depts, not the FBI).
Yeah I noticed the pets too, no doubt the FBI agents picked up her concern for it and used the situation to their advantage. Imagine if it was kids, friends or relatives.
"Sure don't have to talk to us, but keep in mind we can arrest you, and we don't want to do it, who knows what weirdos your kids might end up with..." "-Yeah sure let's talk..."
Because you will be afraid that if you don't comply they will treat you badly and maybe even take you to jail. You can see in the interview of RW that the FBI agents make it seem like they are just there to find out what happened and they say several times that they think she just made a mistake. They are doing that in order to get her to see them as allies in the search for the truth and to minimize the gravity of the situation. So, in a case like this she would probably be sitting there thinking "yeah it was a mistake I didn't want to do that at all I can't believe I made a mistake like that" which makes it all but impossible for her to halt the interview and request an attorney. In order to have asked for legal representation she would have had to see the gravity of the situation, which the FBI agents downplayed over and over as a trick.
Those doing the questioning try hard to blend the line between "we're just talking" and you needing a lawyer. The truth is, you need a lawyer precisely because you're "just talking."
We've also been conditioned to believe that retaining and using a lawyer should be conflated with guilt.
When you are in this situation fine, sat at your desk, relaxed.
If I pretend to be your friend make you feel amazing then crank up the pressure before you realise what’s going on you’re being quizzed at a pace by someone who doesn’t even give you time to breath and starts making threats about your future well-being. Sure, you might forget the lawyer the first time this happens.
Sorry, I don't closely follow this whole "don't talk to the police ever" thing- is this the case even when you're just refusing to talk to the police on the street without an attorney? Was always under the impression the right to publicly provided legal counsel mostly centered on an actual trial.
In her case had she refused to answer any questions pending an actual arrest, they likely would have arrested her. This is the (famously obnoxious) “Am I being detained?” question. Once you’re placed under arrest you have the right to a state-provided attorney.
What she leaked didn't hurt the deep state or the plutocracy, nor did it help the people. She is either hopelessly naive in all of her actions, or controlled. Probably the former.
There are two very basic prerequisites before the police must issue a Miranda warning to a suspect:
- The suspect is in police custody
- The suspect is under interrogation
It's crucial to understand these prerequisites because if you aren't formally in police custody, and you aren't being interrogated, the police don't have to give you a Miranda warning. This, in turn, means that the police can use anything you say until those two requirements are fulfilled as evidence against you.
It was a long time ago, so I don't remember an awful lot. He caught me off balance from the start. I remember bringing ID and asking him if he needed to see it. With a hint of an amused smile he replied "I know who you are, young man." Other than that, he just kept me chatting. It seemed perfectly natural at the time.
Be careful with this. Attempting to be charming in this way means you've taken one branch over an alternate branch. And at least in the U.S., very few people will be willing to tell you the costs once you've made the decision, especially if you are extraordinarily bad at being charming.
For example: at the beginning of "The Little Prince", the narrator describes his childhood drawing of a snake eating an elephant which he uses to test the people he meets as an adult. If the person tells him, "that is a snake eating an elephant," he knows he is safe to talk about "important" things in life. If the person instead tells him, "that is a hat," he talks about superficial things.
But it's actually worse than that, because in the book there is only a single person-- the narrator-- who is judging the character of others. But when someone attempts to "work" a room by being charming, they immediately telegraph their intentions to the entire room at once. And everyone else immediately adjusts their behavior accordingly.
And Americans will not only gloss over the inneffectual charms of others, they will actively lie to avoid the conflict of calling someone else a phony. So if you try to charm, there's no way to get trustworthy feedback on your progress.
On the other hand-- if we're discussing something I care deeply about, there is little to gain by you staring at my irises for the correct amount of time. Beautiful smile or not, at some point you're going to respond in words to what I'm saying. At that point you're either clearly demonstrating your comprehension and interest, or you are so quick-witted and devious that I probably want to get to know you anyway out of sheer fascination (at least on a short-term basis).
One tip mentioned is to raise your eyebrows. As example: when you first meet someone, raise your eyebrows slightly (or one), smile, and tilt your head and greet them. Making someone else feel special makes you charming.
Along the same lines: I find that voice cadences, and inflection, work pretty well for being charming! Take time to enuncicate the whole sentence you want to say, throw emotion into your words. And if you happen to do the eyebrow trick at the same time - it's charm overload.
You also have to accept the possibility of being creepy. People have varied and different responses to things and there is no way to 100% eliminate the possibility that any given person sees you as a threat to their safety. All you can do is take reasonable precautions so that a reasonable person would not be creeped out. Keep in mind that "reasonable" is culturally-dependent, so you should pay attention to the local social norms as aspirationally advocated and actually practised. One useful thing to do is to go into a situation with at least one friend so that you can check in with them when situations are ambiguous.
Someone once told me that the way they can always tell if someone is an American traveling abroad in their country is that they always have this stupid shit eating grin on their face and most everyone else keeps a neutral expression.
If you are out of your cultural element, you can cross the line into apparent insincerity with surprising ease. Always know thyself.
I have seen babies learn to walk, they don't get it the first, or the fifth time, but their parents encourage them, and most learn it.
However social skills are a completely different beast: here we just accept it as whatever you happen to learn is whatever level you will just have to live with.
Some people are naturally and unconsciously charming, and others, through a confluence of nature and experience, aren’t, and might not even realize it.
Is it fair for the less charming people to be at a permanent disadvantage? Or does being conscious of what is for others unconscious make one automatically manipulative? What if after a few months or years of intential charm, it became automatic?
Compare it to being a poor driver that is unknowingly causing stress and danger to fellow drivers. They take a course in defensive driving and consciously learn a few techniques like counting the distance between them the vehicle in front, not passing in the right lane, anticipating red lights, etc. After a couple of years of consciously driving like this these habits become automatic and traffic around them functions more smoothly. Practicing social skills is more like this than you probably think.
Learning how to write clearly and persuasively is another example that one could dismiss as manipulative at their own peril.
I see charm as a way to make connections with others (which is awesome!). It's also crazy fun to inflect your voice. Everyone has a better time when you're okay being silly.
Would you treat a new acquaintance like they had the plague? Probably not. Is it manipulative to be nice to someone? I don't think so. Being silly with inflection, or using any of the tools described in the article, for me is just another way to relate to others.
I won't deny some may use the tools for manipulation - but the practice isn't inherently manipulative in my opinion.
Beyond being manipulative, it's coming across in your descriptions as childish and weird. How about you just act how you feel? That seems a lot more relatable.
So much so that some of it appears bordering on psychopathy: concentrate on the colours in someone's eyes to pretend you care about what they're saying, indeed!
As opposed to actually caring about what they have to say. There's a much more agreeable part of the article that talks about finding common ground with the second party.
Manipulative, maybe. But why grossly? All you are doing is making the other person feel good. It should be encouraged and celebrated. If you have a choice between making someone feel neutral, or feel great, why wouldn't you choose great?
Tools are tools. Some people use these techniques to be manipulative. Others use them to protect themselves from those that use them maliciously, or as a social prosthesis the same way they might use a meticulous journal to combat an attention or memory disorder.
Thanks for this. It's interesting to see that the main comment threads are:
- how interrogations leverage psychological manipulation to divulge information
- how to use verbal and visual tricks
- tabeth pointing out how people perceive social interactions as insincere
Yet a lot of people claim that it's ok to deploy psychological manipulation when your intentions are "good".
It's been said that the end doesn't justify the means.
The ends do not justify the means, rather the means determine the ends you get. And if the means you use are a complete and obvious disinterest in other people...
Yes, it is. The difference is that I generally choose to listen to specific types of music (or to see performances that I willing choose to let manipulate me). If a random person on the street came up to me and started playing any sort of music, that would be incredibly rude. (Note that this is different than buskers who are not generally targeting a specific person and generally need a permit to perform in a specific place.)
Any good book recommendations on engaging small talk and authentic first impressions? I’m headed to a weeklong NYE retreat that has a tendency to dredge up high school cafeteria level social anxieties.
A while back I read Never Eat Alone [0], and found it to be fruitful for framing casual social interactions.
Additionally, most other people do not look forward to "mindless smalltalk with strangers". Since it's possible that everyone in the group shares equal anxiety about being there, you can provide a gift to them by asking pointed questions. If it's easy for them to answer, and gives something interesting for everyone else to listen to, it's actually a lot of pressure off the whole group.
The go-to question I use is:
what's the best book you've read in the last year or so? Why?
Note: This works for me because I am a voracious reader, and am always on the hunt for more good books, so if they can make a good book recommendation, I benefit. YMMV.
Since not everyone reads, that question can be amended to "best movie/tv show/documentary".
I'm often the new guy in certain work situations, and that question has saved me a lot of discomfort.
It's funny how some adjectives always seem to be followed by certain nouns, huh? I think about this whenever I heard about "bodies strewn on the street" on the news.
Reading (and watching) seems to be compared to eating all the time:
- I devoured that book
- I binged that season
Then there's that term, "consumption" which seemingly applies to every piece of media.
You're looking for the linguistic term 'collocation,' and these are good examples of idiomatic usage of English. Further, words located in proximity with each other is a big part of the distributional hypothesis: "you shall know a word by the company it keeps". This is in turn a key component of how language models like word2vec or GloVe can be effective.
This is actually an everyday way of expressing a scientifically observed fact. Studies of highly intelligent people suggest that they have a “rage to learn”: they greedily and even obsessively search out new information.
This has the danger of someone rambling for like 10 minutes about some book and everyone else is just waiting for him/her to finish.
I hate people who tell "stories" in big groups , so rude. I prefer quick back and forth where everyone gets a chance to speak. Lots of people overestimate how interesting their story is to other people.
I want to know how to tell people who monopolize group discussion to shut the fuck up so others can speak.
100% agree. There are members of my family that, if allowed to contribute a sentence, often go on to dominate the conversation for minutes, despite the very obvious boredom and displeasure of everyone else in the conversation.
If you come up with an answer to how to tell a conversational monopolist to shut up... please, please share it. I usually just walk away, but that doesn't improve the situation for everyone else.
I just interrupt them, by asking someone else in the group their opinion on what was just said. Rude? Yes, but not as rude as taking over the conversation for longer than you should.
One thing that helps me is knowing that these people are Quality Time (according to the Five Love Languages book). Don't confuse Quality Conversation with Time. The best way to stop them is to identify the time that has gone by. I don't have perfect method yet.
I like your suggestion but I am not sold on you asking about what someone's favorite documentary is in work situations. You generally want to avoid discussing politics in work situations. How do you cope with that? Has it ever lead to awkward situations?
good question. I pretty actively try to avoid discussing politics, because... well, it's rarely fruitful. Talking/debating pretty much never convinces anyone of anything.
If you want to change someone's mind on something, step 1 tends to be "deeply understand why they think a certain thing", and not only is this totally at odds with casual work conversation, it's not actually appropriate in the vast majority of work relationships.
Anyway - gentle redirects out of political topics usually work for me.
If they say something like "I just watched a documentary about {bad group} doing {bad thing}, and that's why Trump is an idiot", I'd try something like "oh, where did you see that? Was it on Netflix, or cable TV?"
If they say Netflix, then "oh, cool. I just saw a video on how Netflix caches content and uses this thing called a 'chaos monkey' to preempt catastrophic outages. It's really clever... the way they use it is..."
Just pick a non-political element out of the conversation, and drive into that. Usually works.
Regarding anxiety, treat the small talk as a game. Something you're having fun with. Realize that the anxiety is coming from your beliefs, not the situation, and you have the power to change. You are an interesting person with a lot to contribute. Everyone else is a bit anxious inside and needs someone to talk. He would be glad if you strike up a conversation with him and find him interesting. Realize that what's the worse that can happen? If they don't like you, so what? Just like in a game, re-spawn in another spot and have fun again.
As for specific techniques, there are the NEWS - News, Event, Weather, and Sport - for non-personal conversational topics. Event is the function you guys are attending that you can have a common shared topic to talk about. Additional topics: Movies, Musics, Mobile, TV, and Games. There are the FORD - Family, Occupation, Recreation, Dreams - for more personal topics to talk about.
As for conversation techniques, there're the SPADDE techniques. S is for small talk, as above. P for paraphrasing what the other person has said. Paraphrasing as a form a question to ask for confirmation and show that you're really listening. Paraphrasing as a form of exclamation to show empathy. A for asking questions. Ask questions to open up new topics. Ask follow up questions to lead the topic further. D for disclosure. Disclose something about yourself. Give them a chance to ask you questions. If they don't know how to follow up, go back to S and A. D for deprecation. Add a bit of self-deprecation to the conversation. E for experience. Ask their experience or talk about your experience.
Not a book, but I've found that asking people what they do and being genuinely interested in it (especially if it's a job you know nothing about) is a treasure trove of interesting information. For example, if you meet a plumber, you can get hours of conversation out of just talking about the various aspects of the jobs.
Although I guess it helps that I like learning about other jobs, too, and I tend to ask people to explain things in detail. They usually like that.
> Here’s a polite person’s trick, one that has never failed me. I will share it with you because I like and respect you, and it is clear to me that you’ll know how to apply it wisely: When you are at a party and are thrust into conversation with someone, see how long you can hold off before talking about what they do for a living. And when that painful lull arrives, be the master of it. I have come to revel in that agonizing first pause, because I know that I can push a conversation through. Just ask the other person what they do, and right after they tell you, say: “Wow. That sounds hard.”
> Because nearly everyone in the world believes their job to be difficult. I once went to a party and met a very beautiful woman whose job was to help celebrities wear Harry Winston jewelry. I could tell that she was disappointed to be introduced to this rumpled giant in an off-brand shirt, but when I told her that her job sounded difficult to me she brightened and spoke for 30 straight minutes about sapphires and Jessica Simpson. She kept touching me as she talked. I forgave her for that. I didn’t reveal a single detail about myself, including my name. Eventually someone pulled me back into the party. The celebrity jewelry coordinator smiled and grabbed my hand and said, “I like you!” She seemed so relieved to have unburdened herself. I counted it as a great accomplishment. Maybe a hundred times since I’ve said, “wow, that sounds hard” to a stranger, always to great effect. I stay home with my kids and have no life left to me, so take this party trick, my gift to you.
> When you are at a party and are thrust into conversation with someone, see how long you can hold off before talking about what they do for a living.
This is also a cultural thing:
When I prepared for my first trip to Brasil I was told that I shouldn't ask people what they do for a living and that it was considered rude. I still don't know if this is really true but one thing I remember sure enough: Wherever I was in Brasil, I got asked about my family a lot.
It probably only works on people who don't get that reaction often. I've been a physicist and a computer engineer the "that's sounds hard" reaction is a bit embarrassing. Also it can be a conversation closer because of the subtext that "I won't understand anything meaningful that you have to say about it".
So I certainly wouldn't use this technique on say a neurosurgeon I meet at some random party.
Personally, I wouldn't use "that sounds hard!" on anyone, as it sounds a bit patronizing, but I would definitely ask a neurosurgeon questions about their job until they were tired of answering. What's not fascinating about neuroscience?!
I do that too and most of the time it leads to good conversations.
Sometimes it gets awkward though and that is when the other person is really, really excited about what they do. If I just show my honest interest I feel disappointment on the other side that I do not share the same enthusiasm.
On the other hand I can't be frantic about something I didn't even know existed a few minutes ago. Positively interested yes, but really, truly emotional no. Faking excitement doesn't make me feel comfortable either.
This happens quite often to me! I ask someone a question and get a super enthusiastic answer!
If it’s something I’m also interested in then we go to town, otherwise I tend to listen to the other person for a short while, perhaps ask them one or two more questions on the topic, then bring the conversation back to something else. It could be about that event or place we’re in, or some kind of tangent based on what has been said earlier in the conversation.
I've generally been on the giving side of that, but I think people like that are generally used to people not sharing their (our) enthusiasm, so I think just being interested and asking questions is fine, even though it doesn't blow your mind.
You don't have to be super excited about everything anyway, just being interested in what the other person has to say already makes you a better listener than most people.
Definitely. I love talking to people about their work, whatever it is.
It's an easy way to get someone to open up to you and you're bound to learn a few things if you're willing to display your lack of knowledge in their domain.
If you approach the conversation with candor, it rarely seems trite
I like to ask people about the strangest/largest/farthest/most unexpected/whatever they have experienced in their work. It shows genuine interest and lets people talk about what they know in a natural story format and since they are taking about something they have witnessed, they don't necessarily need to talk about themselves if they are not comfortable with that.
I just finished listening to "The Like Switch" [1] and it covers a lot of ground on how to hit it off with people. It starts with non-verbal behaviors to look friendly to people when they first see you and then slowly transitions into how to make them like you more when talking to them.
I'm on a holiday now and I'm trying to apply some of the things I've learned. I feel like I'm getting good results. A lot of the suggestions are similar to what I've read in other books; especially the "How to win friends and influence people", which signals to me that these things are core principles rather than tricks found out by individual authors.
One thing I've learned from these books. All of these techniques need you to have a degree of self-confidence in-order to apply them. That's something I'm working on right now, but overall I think these books (and similar ones) have a lot of good info to offer for shy non-communicative people like me.
I would like to go to random retreats , where do i find these?
Regarding anxiety, I constantly remind myself that people have short memories and even shorter memories about other people. No matter what embarrassing thing that do you do/say will be forgotten very soon by everyone.
This book worked well at helping me overtime social anxiety. It helped me see how others saw me. Upon reading it, and taking its advice, at least one long-time friend mentioned to my wife at how much happier and friendlier I seemed lately.
Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends And Influence People is the classic small talk book. TL;DR: people like to talk about themselves and listeners make good conversationalists.
You just have to realize that small talk, especially among those who don’t know each other well, is stateless. There is no beginning and no end. It’s just talking for the sake of killing time, introducing yourself, etc...
Note that one of its foundations is that developing social, emotional, expressive, performance-based skills takes practice and rehearsal to go from mechanical practicing, like playing scales, to effortless, genuine, authentic self-expression. The same as in learning to act, sing, play an instrument, play a sport, military, and so on.
The book gives you exercises. It's not for everyone. Just reading it will help you appreciate the skills. Practice will lead to growth.
Many seem to claim that using these methods are manipulative. One could also argue that knowing these methods put those that lack inherited social skills, or find it scary to interact with others, on equal footing with those that use these techniques naturally. Look to someone you think is killing it in all social circumstances without effort. These people will smile (with both the eyes and mouth), show interest in others and mirror the physical behavior of their talking partner. Most of these people aren't trying to manipulate. It comes naturally. You could improve yourself to just become a natural by realizing these signs.
> “While some things, like dominance, are highly related to morphological features, there are things like trustworthiness and even attractiveness which are highly dependent on facial expressions,” says Todorov
> Of course, while you may not be able to control the physical features of your face, it is possible to alter your expressions and smile.
A good guide to become a likeable "nice guy" chump... unfortunately, multiple studies show that even narcissism is more correlated with success and attractiveness than trying to show you're likeable, non-threatening person.
While things in this article are mostly factually correct, they don't work as the author claims.
One thing to consider is that many people who write these books and articles are usually thinkers, very biased and likely to interpret these findings (like smile signals you're not a threat) to conform their ideal world view.
To see just how much of a BS this is in terms of effectiveness, if you're a heterosexual guy, try interacting with women (or other men) with non-threatening smile and raised eye-brows.
People tend to find others insincere when it seems like the other person is trying or practicing rather than just acting naturally. Unfortunately, social interactions are a skill, and for many people this skill could use some work, so this becomes a catch-22. Trying or practicing is a prerequisite for getting better, but it seems unnatural and/or awkward at first.
Of course, some people just rattle off canned lines and don't pay attention to others. They're insincere, because they can't be bothered to give other people their attention and respect.
In my experience, people who are actively trying to get better at social situations are usually in the first category, but not always (read PUAs). And maybe there are other categories!
It’s really a question of intent. One of my favorite observations was a comment made by Day9 (a pro Starcraft commentator) on the topic of strategy. He said that, when he was younger, he used to think that strategy was just “whoever had the best trick.” But as he grew and improved at the game, he began to understand that strategy was more a matter of focus, consistently good decision-making, and occasionally some deep situational insight. I think working on your social skills is similar. If you are just trying to learn “one simple trick” to manipulate other people, you’re really missing the point and being kind of a bad human being to boot. You’ll almost certainly sabotage yourself and head down a bad path. But if you’re genuinely trying to improve your interactions with other people and to understand why conversations may not go as smoothly as you would think, and if you have good intent, I think these sorts of things can be very useful for people that are not intuitively skilled at meeting strangers.
Even "PUAs" are often in the first category. Many guys getting into the pickup scene tend to start off using these canned one-liners and being insincere. Often they are really uncomfortable with talking to anyone, much less the opposite sex, so these canned openers and lines sort of help them build some initial confidence in some cases even though they're super cheesy - they are used as a crutch. But as they get more comfortable they sort of realize that using someone else's lines to seem like an interesting person isn't an actual replacement for being a genuinely interesting person. Some of these guys continue relying on the cheesy canned openers, but quite a few move on to actually learning more genuine communication skills and working on improving themselves in the long run, becoming genuinely interesting people to talk to.
Many Europeans regard Americans as insincere in social interactions. I suspect many of these "tips" would fall very flat outside the USA. Americans always want to be your best friend, then it becomes clear at the end of the conversation that it meant nothing to them. Kind of a shame as it masks genuine kindness.
I agree that there is something like an Overton window in social interactions and that it is centered at different points of the continuum in different cultures. Still, for some people at least (me!) thinking about where I sit in that window in my culture is interesting and I hope helpful.
Agreed but there is no shortcut around a culture fixated on personal gain for personal profit. This seems to be built into the framework of the USA instead of being an optional dependency! With outcomes like high inequality, huge divisions, fake politicians etc.
The driving ideology is in direct opposition to genuine, casual, unmotivated concern/interest.
No problem with people actively trying to be more confident or just practicing being more sociable etc, but the slightest scent of social manipulation, trying to get something out of me, or anything scripted borders on "pick-up artist" repulsion.
Being in the UK is particularly difficult and I get the impression eastern Europe is similar or the same. Getting an honest and authentic reply to every day questions seems impossible. But I also understand that there is some weird cultural requisite of toughness and not making a fuss getting in the way of authentic conversations with strangers.
To the contrary, I think people who put effort into their interpersonal interactions are not necessarily insincere at all. Unless they're sales people :)
There are now so many people who have read and taken to heart these types of tricks, that displaying that you've read them, even if you come across slighly insincere is itself sometimes a positive social signal (i.e. that you're trying to improve yourself).
Should people who aren't naturally gifted at interpersonal interaction simply accept their reduced prospects of social, romantic, career and business success? Try applying that logic to any other skill that doesn't come naturally.
> "Suzanne de Janasz, an affiliated professor of management at Seattle University, says interpersonal skills are becoming increasingly important in the workplace as organisations have done away with older, hierarchical structures in recent years."
Yup. "Flat" organizational structures don't exist in reality; you're just replacing a formal hierarchy with an informal hierarchy of charisma.
You might enjoy the essay The Tyranny Of Structurelessness, which articulates this exact point, if you weren't already referencing it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7409611
These techniques are very similar to those used in social engineering.
In order to social someone, you need to get them to trust you. Charm, charisma, and likeability are all related and essential when you want to get something out of someone. That may sound transactional and it is.
Unfortunately, I’ve realized that no one is a friend to you out of the goodness of their heart. That simply does not exist anymore.
It’s interesting how the eyebrow flash and the smile are promoted in this BBC article on charm, yet perhaps did not do Hillary Clinton so much good in this age of the strongman. Women have it tough getting the tone right in politics and business.
I’d be cautious with that kind of advice. Rapport is established over time. Even if you make a terrible first impression you can make up for that during a course of an interview (for example).
Tricks to make yourself look like a sleazy salesman to anyone who sees through your bullshit. It's like the "developing your 'personal brand'" concept those without personalities use on social media, but applied to real life situations.
I prefer not to interact with people who need to use "tricks" to make themselves seem trustworthy. The fact that you're faking a personality (aka lying) already tells me all I need to know about your trustworthiness up front.
* Given them your attention and listen closely. Ask considerate questions.
* Practice empathy. People usually don't want advice, they most often simply want someone else to understand their experiences. If they are open to advice and you have a tidbit of wisdom, share it kindly and with obvious humility
* Channel your optimistic/zen side. All bad experiences are temporary, we can't change the past, and our mindset greatly affects how we actually feel about any scenario. The future is in front of us, how do we want to proceed? These attitudes can be contagious as well.
* Try to find common ground, even if you don't share their viewpoint. With a stranger, there isn't usually a foundation of rapport and mutual understanding to support adversarial debate.
* If you strongly disagree, respectfully acknowledge what they have said, and then shift to a more amicable topic (unless they specifically ask for your view)
* Pay close attention to body language and other subtle cues. Listen to what is not being said. Keep in mind all relevant context. The specific words that are spoken usually reflect a small portion of the actual information being communicated.
Practice, practice, practice. These skills come naturally for some, but we can all use improvement. Being actively mindful of these aspects of communication/social interaction is valuable for anyone.