I started paying attention to people and discovered a lot of this on my own over the course of three years. At some point i realized that whenever i talked to someone their eyes would glaze over and their face would go stony. Then theyd talk to someone else and their eyes would become focused and their face alive and animated. Laughter. I figured out this was because they didnt care about what i was saying or about my opinions. So i tried various things and looked at their eyes. Sometimes their eyes would become alive again and i could tell they cared. Slowly you learn what people want to hear. And its so true about smiling and body language, people feel uncomfortable if you dont project wellbeing. What you need to understand is that there is no logic in any of it. Humans are machines and the algorithms that they employ for attention and emotion are surprisngly uniform and very unintuitive for autists like me and you. Dont worry about the logic of whats hapenning, just think of what their algorithm is doing. Its verry dificult because you cant verify what people are thinking, you cant debug it and you cant start over -- you have to guess a lot. Overall people want to see big smiles and confident body posture. If you are slouched over people dont like it. If you stand up straight you will be amazed at how differently you are percieved. But it all has to be genuine. If youre trying to manipulate and understand people in a clinical way you will fail. All you need is a genuine desire to bond with people and the patience to pay attention to what seems to work and what doesnt.
I should also add that for me, and probably for most people like me, the process of figurimg out what people like and dont like is also partly a process of self discovery. Im not the kind of person thats in touch with himself. Discovering how your words impact other people will also teach you about how your mind, conciously or otherwise, reacts emotionally to the words of others. Overall ive been genuinely excited to learn about myself amd others and use that wisdom to help enjoy the presence of other people. For me its been a very productive process of growth and discovery. I think framing the problem of interpersonal relations within that context instead of the cringey, manipulative context of internet social tips really helped.
Actually, not only do I agree with your main point, but I think I know why it's a problem. (BTW, it's a problem for me too.) Most people today have the attention span of gnats. They crave talk in small, light, humor-based doses, like TV sitcom dialogue.
(And yes, I don't understand what most people want to hear either. Mostly I think they want others to compliment them, ask them to expound on themselves, and laugh at inane jokes.)
Your long-ish post implies that you prefer discourse (the antithesis of small talk). I suspect you'd like to pose an idea and then exchange ideas on it. While that was popular before the age of TV (much less internet), conversation on topics that resonate and last for 5+ minutes is unusual today, especially verbally, and it's likely that few strangers respond well to it. People like to tell / hear stories about other people, not discuss ideas.
Like you (I suspect) I suffer small talk badly, though in recent years I've learned to cut back on delivering 'large talk'... hopefully before peoples' eyes glaze over.
So much this. I am genuinely concerned about the direction of discourse and society in general with the way mass communication on the Internet has played out. Just look at how the damn president of the US communicates in tweets - short, authoritative and usually inflammatory. After that, all other conversation is drowned out by Twitter rolling responses in to another view.
The build up of these echo chambers and extremely brief communication patterns contributes greatly to polarizing people on all kinds of different issues. It's really terrifying to me.
What made you believe that this so called 'large talk' was popular before TV? I feel people were simply more wordy before, not necessarily more expansive in terms of exchanging ideas.
I'm not even sure people were more wordy. TV has been widespread for three generations now. When people under the age of 80 talk about the time before TV, they're mostly revealing their imaginations and not any historical information.
> Its verry dificult because you cant verify what people are thinking, you cant debug it and you cant start over -- you have to guess a lot
I think there is a way to verify what people are thinking and that would be by asking them questions. As you point out later it has to be genuine and not a clinical encounter, and I'd also add not a self-serving one. If you genuinely want to understand what they are saying you would then be very present in the conversation rather than just trying to hear what you think you want or don't want to hear (ie: "I've got to found out if he/she's going to abandon me or break my heart" is a self-serving interest and will eventually have the opposite effect), but trying to understand what they are saying because you are curious about them and hold them in high esteem will go a far way and asking questions that help you try to understand their point of view.
Too many people are trying to either narrate the relationship or are trying to serve their own self-interests and apply way too much meaning to each interaction and if instead they saw an encounter as an opportunity to learn rather than to try to have it mean something personally I think they'd find a whole lot more success.
I'm not extremely experienced in social interaction but I've had to learn to be to be able to communicate better with my wife and this is what I've learned, my self-centered motives have prevented me from learning so much more from others and using curiosity and questions has been super helpful in helping me to overcome social anxiety and relationship conflict fears.
tldr; let go of your ego (don't take things personally) and try to learn what other people are saying by asking them genuine questions (rather than trying to do all the talking, you learn more this way).
> Humans are machines and the algorithms that they employ for attention and emotion are surprisngly uniform and very unintuitive for autists like me and you.
What do you (or anyone else reading this) think of evolutionary psychology in which context such aspects of human behavior can be somewhat consistently explained?
I think the article severely downplays the importance of attractiveness. If the other party finds you attractive, the bar is lowered to the point of you simply being normal/average in terms of intelligence, wit, and whatever else you want to include in your definition of what makes a person "interesting". You basically need to be a vapid idiot to give anyone a bad impression as an attractive person.
It's a huge factor. I've started putting some of my big programmer bucks into improving my appearance before I hit 30, starting with braces (family couldn't afford them as a kid), eyelid surgery to fix some mild ptosis, and a nose job. I've also started using sunscreen and moisturizer on my face on a regular basis.
The past few years have made me realize that your appearance only becomes more important as you age and progress in a white-collar career -- not less, as I was led to believe as a child. This is especially disheartening to realize while working in CA/NYC tech, which have always been billed as one of the most meritocratic and progressive sectors. Getting into shape only takes you so far. I consider myself average now, but I want to be hot.
Please stop, you are wrong. Im attractive and people hate me. Have you ever considered whats its like to be attractive? People are instantly jealous of you and hate you. And they make sure to lay judgement into you -- if you arent whip smart they will tear you down just like anyone else. I know ugly, average looking and good looking people who all do very well with people and in life. It comes down to your intelligence, not how you look. Please dont mutilate your face like a south korean teenager. Just like them you will find thay its not worth it.
>Please stop, you are wrong. Im attractive and people hate me. Have you ever considered whats its like to be attractive? People are instantly jealous of you and hate you. And they make sure to lay judgement into you -- if you arent whip smart they will tear you down just like anyone else.
Sorry, but I've never seen anything like this happen after high school. Attractiveness is respected, especially if you can keep or improve it as you begin to age.
>Please dont mutilate your face like a south korean teenager.
If you're referring to the eyelid surgery, it's not THAT kind of eyelid surgery.
Question for you and xor1. Are you talking about going from a 1 to a 5, from a 5 to an 8 or from an 8 to a 10?
My intuition is that at the deformed end of the spectrum, any improvement is going to be 99% positive and that it starts to become more of a mixed blessing as you approach perfection.
I don't like using a 10-point system because it's so ambiguous, but I guess I'm talking about going from 5-8 to 8-10. The way I mentally do rankings is Ugly - Acceptable - Exceptional, so going from Acceptable to Exceptional.
(For the record, I try very, very hard to treat everyone equally, since the influence that attractiveness has on human behavior is something that I'm aware of and think about constantly. Hence this discussion.)
I think intelligence in general is not exactly what makes you do well with people, it's more of a certain type of intelligence that has no direct relation to what (most of us) consider intelligence.
I myself consider to be really intelligent and even attractive, although my interest in relating with people is really low and thus it's difficult for me to interact with strangers. I'm bad at this kind of intelligence that makes you good at human relations.
>Please stop, you are wrong. Im attractive and people hate me.
These two sentences are all the evidence required to conclude that your issue is not your looks. They reek of a superiority complex, victim mentality, and a complete lack of understanding and respect for other people and their life experiences. Very unattractive. No wonder people want to tear you down.
You can keep blaming your looks and other people for your failings, or you can do some serious reflection and tackle the very uncomfortable truths you've been avoiding about how you show up, interact, and perceive yourself and others.
Wake up. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Don't confuse looks and attractiveness. In person attractiveness is mostly not about looks.
One of the ugliest men I know is also the most attractive to others (yes both sexes): confidence, warmth, a dash of rascality and a great sense of vitality and fun.
People want poetry in their lives...not to admire each other's perfect eyelids.
I've felt that the most 'attractive' people I know are also the most energetic. They just have a fun energy about them, a very "Let's Go!" attitude to ideas and things.
Being fun and energetic trumps 'attractiveness' any day in social situations. Of course, good looks help, but it isn't the only weapon in the game.
Idk, although I kind of get the gist of what you are saying, I've met plenty of unattractive people who are pleasant to be with.
And for whatever reasons, I'm more attracted to talking to these (unattractive) people than some Brad Pitt look-a-likes. They tend to make me feel more at ease. Different strokes for different people I guess.
>And for whatever reasons, I'm more attracted to talking to these (unattractive) people than some Brad Pitt look-a-likes. They tend to make me feel more at ease.
I'm actually really interested in why you feel this way, if you could go into more detail.
- If it's a very attractive girl I am talking to/hitting on, I am generally more self conscious about my appearance, making it harder to relax during the conversation. I feel that any misstep in my talking will immediately make them disinterested in me.
- There's the stereotype that attractive people are boring/dumb/narcissistic since they can use their attractiveness as a crutch. I am definitely guilty of passing this judgement on people.
Fun fact: there's tons of office romances, and people fuck like rabbits while working in the same company all the time. Even in puritanical US (or especially there).
Heck, millions of people met at work and finally got married.
I can expand a bit on @jaequery's comments, as well as elaborate on "attractiveness", in general.
I worked in hospitality (bars/restaurants) for a decade before moving into tech. Working behind "the stick" you get to witness a lot of human interaction. @jaequery may feel more comfortable around people who are not Brad Pitt look-a-like because he/she doesn't have judge them (that much) and, hence, does not have to worry about their conversant judging them back.
Attractiveness, in general, is really useful in the beginning of meeting a stranger. Most folks will judge another within 3-5 second and create a mental model of that person. As the model forms, there are basic assumptions that take place, such as: "they are a threat", "wow, she is attractive", "he seems cool", etc. Most will use simple adjectives as concreteness to anchor the stranger to something familiar.
Usually, after the initial assumptions are made, you move on. However, if you decide to talk to the other person, then, other mental models start popping up.
During the initial introduction, both parties are constantly judging each other, starting with the most basic (are their eyes clear, is their hair cut, are their shoes polished or clean, watch, jewelry, etc.). Once both parties are comfortable, the model changes. Most people will start using adverbs to describe the person (he has an exciting life, she's traveled everywhere, the couple is very friendly).
As all of this occurs, we are also judging ourselves; this is what sets folks apart from being comfortable with speaking to others (or in public) while others loose their shit.
It seems, from my experience, that while this whole social game is playing out, some folks just don't give a crap about the other person's "top-level" traits and attempt to engage the other person's actual personality. This particular quality is found in people who are "cool" or friendly with everyone. The engagement becomes very personal and disarming. I believe this is why @jaequery feels comfortable around certain people: he/she is trying to get to this point and engage the "inner-onion" of the person, instead of the top skin level stuff.
What's even more interesting is that the single separation of why women are way more comfortable meeting people then men is because of their mental model of people. Women are socially approached from a young age: being asked to the school dance, movies, then dates...while still in JHS or HS. By the time they graduate college, they've seen hundreds or thousands of guys and have built strong mental models of people. On the other hand, most guys are terrified of approaching another person because of rejection and hence do not have enough "hours" in developing mental models.
I believe this is also a major part of "Mother's Intuition". That intuition is built upon a large cache of real world models that they apply and can see through the BS.
Every single time a girl is talking with a guy and thus making model, a guy is talking with a girl too.
In any case, most girls are not approached from a young age by hundreds or thousands of guys thou. Only few very super popular girls are like that. Tomboy girls also have a lot of experience of talking with guys, but only in their group of friends, hardly hundreds. Both groups are not even close to being majority of girls.
The again, those girls would not get the advertised benefit of being talked to hundreds or thousands of guys and have built strong mental models of people. At best, they could have create mental model of a minority of guys - all of them extroverted and easy to talk to strangers. But practically speaking, majority of girls are not talking to hundreds of guys. You get to talk to some guys in your class, in extracurricular activities and maybe neighborhood.
Adding to it, introverted and shy girls exist too and those often end up not talking to hundreds of guys even when those attempt to approach them. These girls will likely hide themselves in a room when such thing may happen.
This is an incredibly interesting explanation. I don't usually think about how social interaction works on a technical/detailed level like this. As much as I hate to admit I am likely slightly autistic and miss some of these more fine grained social details, although I do well by following a learned pattern of being outgoing and friendly. Would love to hear more!
I might be coming at this from a different angle but I think it comes down to competition. Well, I don't have any scientific proofs per se (bleh) but I think we are generally hard-coded from our DNA to try/want to be the most attractive. It's only when you are well aware it's not a threat, you'd be able to lower your guard down.
Now, if we are talking about opposite sex, then that's a whole another type of conversation.
I am going to assume that you don't consider yourself to be exceptionally attractive. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, with that assumption, if you were able to wake up tomorrow morning and be on par with a "Brad Pitt" lookalike, how do you think that your reaction to interacting with them would change? What about with the other group of people that you currently prefer to engage with? After thinking about that, would you still prefer that things remain as they are?
>Now, if we are talking about opposite sex, then that's a whole another type of conversation.
This matters too, of course, unless you don't plan to interact with them at all in a professional environment :)
Attractive is not physical appearance or good looks. Attractive is a culmination of all the factors that can be observed or known that will give a positive impression.
It is usually much more important to carry yourself as attractive than to be beautiful. Confidence, honesty, friendliness, integrity, etc all can be assumed by a picture of a beautiful person, but in practice it's body language that portrays these qualities better. In addition, things like humor and other tips in the article can control someone's impression much more than looks.
Make yourself hot if you want. But if you're still insecure or unhappy inside, it's going to come off as unattractive. (Unless you then act more alpha as a defense mechanism to this... Behavior is complicated)
I certainly didn't think you were either, but now you took what was pretty clearly a generic statement as a personal one and I can't help but rethink that.
Absolutely. A face will change in subjective attractiveness depending on the mental temperature of it's owner. Benevolence, tranquility, conspiratorial crackling wit, real empathy - seeing these on people's faces makes them immensely attractive.
And both your personality and your face get used to these mental dispositions and settle into them. So eventually we all get the face we deserve.
The problem with being attractive as a male is twofold. You're constantly antagonized by other males, even in the most trivial things, and it's harder to been taken seriously because most people correlate good looks with low intelligence. Bottom line is that you have to try harder than everyone else because everywhere you go you'll face hostility, especially in the corporate world.
For example, it took me a lot of years to realize why men where constantly bragging about their lives when I first met them. Initially I thought that this is common, that everyone does it. But it turns out that they do it because I'm good looking and they feel disadvantageous, even if I downplay the way I look. Imagine how it feels if pretty much everyone you meet comes with you with a fake personality. It wears you down and makes relationships too difficult.
I think a lot of people (myself included) subconsciously assume that good-looking people got where they were based on looks rather than merits, especially if they hold a customer-facing role.
(I'm certainly not claiming that this bias is valid.)
This is true and its true for women too. So often it's assumed that attractive women irrespective of their job type got where they were based on looks rather than merits
On the whole you're correct and there are many studies that confirm that attractiveness is a big advantage in countless ways. However:
1. attractive is relative. Many, of not most people who are not considered attractive are also not considered unattractive. Just average, like most other people. Being average in looks can be compensated for in many other ways. I know many people who think they're unattractive when they're perfectly average.
2. I believe a strong confounding (or mediating?) variable is confidence and 'niceness'. Pretty people experience less bullying, more positive interactions, etc., which in turn makes them more confident and 'nice' (no need to hate the world, so to speak), which then makes them more attractive. Some of the most popular, nice, successful people I've known were far from attractive, but they were confident and nice. Or even just confident.
I think you're confusing two very different kinds of personal appeal, and this can be seen most in the way that attractive people are often allowed to talk, but aren't required to listen.
On a separate note, I'd warn people (as someone to whom people have always freely talked) it can be a bad thing! You might not see this, and I understand that a lot of people here struggle socially, but it can be terrible to be a "go-to" person. If it's your friends and family, it's a good thing most of the time, but how about in a large or casual group?
The old, the infirm, the lonely... they're the first to realize that I'll be polite, listen, and engage. Sometimes they latch on, and it can be exceedingly difficult to shake them off without hurting them. Then, the crazy people and the broken people sense compassion and an ear, and they come running.
To paraphrase a comedian's description of cleavage, being someone that people love to talk to does not discriminate. Sure, you attract the people you want to attract, but you attract EVERYONE ELSE too. It can be exhausting...
Believe it or not, the size of the place you live matters a lot here (re physical attactiveness.) In a big city, everyone tends to create a shiny superficial persona designed to make a good fast impression, 'cause you ain't seeing them again; and we tend to admire those who have that necessary big-city skill, too, even when we know them well. It's that important. Physically attractiveness really helps creating a compelling instant personna.
But all this just doesn't fly in much smaller places such as a small town. Other factors rise to be at least equally important, such as both semantic and emotional honesty.
He is for real, no doubt. Also he is correct. I have seen this depressingly often. Anecdote from the trenches: A dev team of about 15. They are working an an algorithm that did some language-type matching. One guy was regarded as the expert on the subject, came up with the algorithm, wrote a paper on it that was the basis of his Masters thesis, and essentially the whole company bowed down in front of him. When I joined I quickly learned that he looked good, had a smooth talk, and was far from a good developer. His work was chaotic and his software was ill behaved, stupidly resource hungry, and based on a flawed hypothesis (it provably didn't work well, and made mistakes). There were two issues with this. Firstly, it cost us a fortune in providing the resource to keep his software running and available, and secondly it had a real negative impact on people's lives. The other devs' on the team were aware of this, and many had solid ideas to improve. I worked with some devs after hours to built a solr-based alternative that took a week to build and test (as opposed to the countless man-years that went into this guys algorithm), and I organised a presentation to the CEO (I was senior exec there, and was on the highest level management team). The presentation was a success, and by all metrics what we cobbled together was faster, cheaper, and most importantly, better. We were congratulated on our success, but after a few days the CEO declined to implement the change. I know that the person in question spent a lot of time lobbying against us during this period. The next move we made was to find a US based company that made software that did the exact same thing, had a solid US Government track record (which was important to our client base - mostly US banks) and was ridiculously cheap. To compare, they did what we did on a laptop. We had 4 racks in a colo to do the same thing. Annual licensing cost was a months dev wage. That plan was also deep-sixed.
I personally left shortly after that, but I spent a lot of time wondering why two obviously superior solutions to real problems were ignored. The dev in question was charming, handsome, spent a lot of time worrying about his looks and was a smooth political operator.
Look and impressions matter more. This is just one of many stories, and it is the primary driver behind me setting up my own shop years ago. I cannot stand this kind of idiocy.
The GP presented it as if the entire reason that this person was a smooth political operator was that they were attractive, which is trivially refuted, as I've seen attractive people who were bad at politics.
Looking good doesn't automatically translate to being good at politics, but it gives your political success a serious boost, and there is a slew of research that backs this up:
I have substance. You're completely delusional if you think that being good-looking will ever be anything other than a benefit. An extremely significant one at that.
Given that the whole point of the post you're responding to seems to be precisely that cosmetics do in fact take you quite far, and substance isn't, in his experience, as important as he was led to believe... I rather doubt simply asserting that looks don't matter is going to change his opinion.
Thank God I'm not the only guy that wears sunscreen! I've shared the same opinion as you for most of my life.
I really got a strong dose of truth in highschool. I got tired of getting picked on and being out of shape in freshman year. I was a loner and a punching bag for kids having a bad day.
I started exercising to stop people from bothering me. I still kept to myself and maintained my outsider status at first, but it didn't last long. The swimming and wrestling coaches wouldn't leave me alone by junior year, and soon after they noticed everyone else did to.
The attention I got from being in shape and attractive was extreme and foreign to me. There was maybe a year lag time that I associate with everyone consciously forgetting who I used to to be. After that, shit got real.
I started getting attention from the popular kids even though I maintained my "loner" friends. I suddenly had several groups of friends that didn't want to be seen around each other.
I was asked to join several sports, and in my senior year I gave in. Once I broke through to sports my popularity was official, and I started getting invites to the richest most popular people's parties.
The craziest part of the attention was the girls. I got groped by women all the time. Women would openly comment on how attractive I was fairly often. Sometimes women in public would catcall me. My mom's friends would openly try to set me up with their daughters. On more than one occasion while drinking, girls I knew but had never touched would literally jump on me and start making out.
And before you think I'm too much of a douchebag, I'm overweight and rather old now. A lot of people will say "it's all confidence" but I'm just as confident as I ever was. Now that I'm not attractive and older it's just called "disgruntled".
It's hard to tell anyone that has been attractive that attractiveness is not important. I've seen it for myself.
Ahh dude, you were sooo close but missed the point entirely. Issue with being attractive in HS is it's cheap. You may actually be disgruntled because you sorta miss the "old you". Problem with this whole post is that your attractiveness didn't permeate to the core of your person.
I also had a similar story as you, except when I joined the football team and hung out with the cool kids, I didn't give a shit what anyone said about my old friends and went back to hang out with them. They were good people and their company never accompanied snide remarks about your choice of clothing, music, etc.
One thing I've learned is being the cool guy give you this amazing ability to actually conversant with many different groups and bring people together. That particular ability will earn you way more social browny points then anything else. It will also make you happy, because people will be happy to see you because of you, not because of how you look or who you hang out with.
> I started getting attention from the popular kids even though I maintained my "loner" friends.
> I also had a similar story as you, except when I joined the football team and hung out with the cool kids, I didn't give a shit what anyone said about my old friends and went back to hang out with them.
I'm not sure what you think you did differently to OP.
Yes! My favorite tactic to get people talking about themselves comes from Paul Ford:
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.
What a lovely little piece with some delightful quotes. Thank you for sharing.
I’ve found that people will fear your enthusiasm and warmth, and wait to hear the price. Which is fair. We’ve all been drawn into someone’s love only to find out that we couldn’t afford it.
Well I wasn't there of course, but all things being equal, if a woman at a party touches you whilst talking, is animated in her discussion, and goes to the trouble of saying out loud that she likes you, well usually that's a good sign that a person is "interested".
Maybe you're in a relationship, maybe you weren't interested anyway but she might have wanted to get your phone number.
Yes, if you're insincere, it's patronizing. So it requires empathy and curiosity.
If done right, it's just like the old Dale Carnegie quote:
You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.
I think it depends more on how cynical and/or confident the person you are talking to is. A cynical person will assume you are insincere even if you aren't. An unconfident person will think you're just being polite.
It really, honestly doesn't. A good conversationalist knows how to draw trust from their partner. One of the great benefits of learning how to listen and respond with genuine interest is that you can pierce the walls people put up. There is no one 'key'; it only comes with practice.
Personally, I have never met an adult[1] in my life who can start a sentence with "Wow" and come off as convincing. "Wow" just sets off my bull shit detector (rightly or not).
Albeit that doesn't prove you are wrong. It could also mean I haven't ever met a "good conversationalist" who has used that word with me.
Seeing as I have read "How to Win Friend's An Influence People" (twice) and 90% of the people I know do the exact opposite of what the book suggests, it could indeed be I have never met those people.
It's not that there aren't things they can say that would be convincing, just the specific quote the OP used -- "Wow. That sounds hard” -- would not only be not effective on me, it would be detrimental.
[1] I have to specify adult because I have met children who use it convincingly.
When considering soft things like conversational flow, try not to get too focused on the use of any one particular word. Look to the intent behind the phrase. "Wow, that sounds hard" is fundamentally 1) an expression of genuine acknowledgement, and 2) an opening to learn more about what is clearly important to the person you're talking to.
The skill is in finding something about your partner that you can say these things honestly about. You do that, and whatever actual words you use to express it don't really matter that much. The emotional intent behind your words will ring clear.
In the original version I heard from him, perhaps on his podcast, he mentioned that he usually uses a stronger exclamation than that but hs a policy of not cursing in whatever publication the written piece appeared in.
You're right, in that there are some people that are minefields. But I do think most people who aren't natural conversationalists greatly overestimate their number. Most folks genuinely want to connect, and it only takes the slightest of pushes to break the ice. Extrovert, introvert... It doesn't really matter, in terms of short-length discussion. People are people.
Of course you don't just say that. Recall from OP how mirroring works: you listen, repeat, label/distill. Odds are there is some part of what they said that you'd sincerely be curious to learn more about, that you think you might be able to relate to. (If it was a brief "I'm a ___" response, ask questions about the field to get to that point, etc.) And at some point you spin things positive like "But X part of the job is probably exciting, right?" Which is a segue into what you're passionate about yourself after they answer.
The key is to be genuinely curious and show it in body language. For the first part, approach every conversation as if it was a 100-upvote HN posting "Why X is more complicated than you might think." Right? Don't be fake, just rationally hold back the impulse to be cynical. The second part takes practice, but nodding, mirroring their body language, shoulders back open stance, etc. are a good start, and you can feel good about doing that if you are genuine, which shows. It all comes down to empathy and knowing how to show it.
But I found the origional Paul Ford source article [1]... and I could be wrong but the way I read it I think it actually is saying to use exactly those words.
I prefer "That's really interesting; what's a day in your life like?" People love talking about this because people spend most of their lives working, so most of their life is work.
I find this to be a good approach too, unless they're in the midst of a PhD program, then they have zero interest in talking about their day cause their dissertation is all-consuming.
Actually most people working on their dissertation love talking about it since that dissertation is practically their entire life. I try to get them to speak in their language and try to understand their world better: how they approached their research, what mistakes they encountered, how they learned from them.
I moved to a city a few years back where it was like every single person I met was a PhD student and none wanted to talk about what they did (some I wouldn't be able to understand anyways, such as astrophysicists, but others I could, if they'd have wanted to talk about it). They'd all mention the general topic, but that's about it. It was quite weird because I happen to share your view and wanted to know more.
"She kept touching me as she talked. I forgave her for that."
Salesmen/Saleswomen know a pat on the back or a touch on the arm can be very disarming. When a stranger touches me purposefully I cannot help but scrutinize the "why?".
Uhhh...I find pats on the back from strangers to be incredibly rude, patronizing, and uncomfortable. Do that to me and I'm likely to just walk away but not before saying "don't touch me."
A touch on the forearm is what I`ve experienced most from saleswomen, a breast press on my arm has occurred more than once. Always* during a negotiation when I was the prospective buyer.
So in return for being "liked" by that woman, the listener had to pretend to be interested in her talk entirely about herself for half an hour? Where she wasn't interested enough to even ask the listeners name?
Sounds like a way to raise her self-esteem at the expense of yours.
> So in return for being "liked" by that woman, the listener had to pretend to be interested in her talk entirely about herself for half an hour?
If the intention was indeed to get the other person to tell something about themselves I'd say it's a fair and successful approach. Plus, you could be genuinely interested in the other person's 30 minute talk. The idea that the interest has to be fake seems to be your conclusion.
I would guess that she was likely to be lonely. Lonely people tend to react that way - show a bit of interest and they can talk for hours. If you have good friends or family around, you already said all of that to them at one point or another - there will be no unburdening. Alternatively she might be female equivalent of an obsessive geek. The constantly touching thing sounds like one of those awkward uncomfortable things.
In any case, she did not said he is the only person in the world she likes nor that this is the only way for someone to make her like him. She just said that she liked him.
Still, it sounds like the paybacks for him were "She kept touching me as she talked. I forgave her for that." and, the knowledge that "I didn’t reveal a single detail about myself, including my name." Amusing.
Yea, I sort of just adopted this strategy as a quiet person, but I found out that I couldn't hang out with other people who used this strategy too, because neither of us would be big talkers and were used to participating in at most 20% of the conversation. So now I just make friends with more talkative folks, some of whom border on narcissism. It's alright though, they tend to be interesting.
For sure keep the talkative ones around, they rub off. You might notice you naturally take the "lead" in convos with people like you as time goes on :)
I've been told that I'm borderline narcissist. That said, I have about the same amount of friends who aren't very talkative and mostly keep to themselves (with those friends I can have very intelligent conversations with) as I have those who are pretty much like me, with whom I can talk about really anything.
My experience has been that this works well for job interviews. Spot something that they seem to have struggled with and talk to them all about their solution. Not only do you learn something but it often seems to leave an impression of you being insightful, even though all you did was ask the right question to hear about their insights.
Honestly there's nothing wrong with that either. Someone who can look at your problem/solution and ask the right questions to allow you to evaluate it from a new angle is a valuable coworker to have.
How are all you guys getting feedback on the conversations you have? For example, how do you know that people thought you were "knowledgeable" or "insightful"? Do you merely ask them what their first impression of you was?
I always try to play the game of "don't say a thing about yourself until someone asks" and it always works wonders. Everyone loves me since all I do is ask questions, giving them an opportunity to speak about themselves. It seriously makes me hate people though since so few actually asks anything back.
Something happens to me with a certain frequency and I have yet to understand it. In a social group of people who are just getting to know each other, there are people I run into who only ask questions, and so I find the constant question-asking to be a defense mechanism (if that's the right term). That is, "I don't know how to go about talking to random people but if I just keep the questions coming, it'll be easier for me."
So there are times when I feel all I've done is talk about myself and it makes me uncomfortable in the end. The only option open to me in these circumstances is to force the direction of the conversation on them. When I've just uttered the last word to the answer of the question they've asked, they ask me a follow-up before I've taken my next breath, so I'd have to force "enough about me, what's your experience with ____?" When I run into such a person, I usually give up and just answer all their questions. It's not that I don't want to know about them.
Do you find any truth in this or has it ever happened to you, on either end of the spectrum?
I've experienced this. I think you understand it well enough. It is uncomfortable because it is a one-sided conversation and when you know that the person might think they are manipulating you into liking them, it is hard not to feel exploited.
I'm happy to say that some of the worst offenders in my life have improved their style over the years and respond to my answers with anecdotes of their own. They might still think they're getting me to like them but the conversation is interesting enough that I'm not annoyed by it.
I'm kind of the same. It's amazing how few people will actually ask about you. I often wonder if I'm giving them the rare opportunity to talk about themselves, or if they're like this all the time.
I've tried that but often the other person also doesn't say much. For instance, I distinctly remember a conversation I had with a woman at an alumni gathering where any question I asked about her work was met with monosyllabic responses. She didn't seem to want disengage from the conversation (body language wasn't "I want to walk away") but wasn't interested in carrying her end of it either. In the end I had to make my excuses and walk away because of how uncomfortable the conversation was.
I learned a while ago that just asking questions isn't enough - sometimes people don't want to talk, or are really boring, there's too big a group to focus on one person, or just constantly interrogating a person gets weird, etc. So you should have some good stories in your back pocket as well. If you think about the most popular people you know, they aren't well received in social settings because they pepper everyone with questions - they're usually funny, chatty, quick witted, and can either carry or let someone else carry a conversation. Be like that guy/gal, not the one that can only ask questions.
I think the hardest part is finding the topic that they are interested. Most people will ramble on about their greatest interest forever. You can't start with "How's work?" or "Watch anything good on Netflix lately?". You have to move into something else like "What have you been doing in your free time?" and then follow up on that. Odds are that they will lead you right to their greatest interest almost immediately. I think questions only has to be clarified with positive reinforcement. If they say they like X, your question needs to validate them too. "I'm not familiar with X but that sounds really interesting. What is the coolest thing about X to you?"
Oh internet and self-help gurus. Why do you have to be the "best" at everything and get the most of out stuff.
It's like those things they teach you that before giving a bad review first start with the good points then add a "but". Sound great in theory but just absurd when you realize someone is doing it to you on purpose.
You know you can do all this and create great rapport and win the title for best conversationalist but if this is not your nature you still won't have fun nor create that connection which you can have by just being you, with all your flaws, moles and warts. If you're not a total asshole, people like you anyway.
Just imagine if your friends were like this. Trying to be the best conversationalist they can be with you instead of being the usual silly dickheads they generally are..
>Oh internet and self-help gurus. Why do you have to be the "best" at everything and get the most of out stuff.
The article's content is ok. But what called my attention was that every single paragraph links to a source, author or better: an amazon book page. Its like the index page of a book on the subject!
Skimming through the article, I observed that they missed the most important step one must do to get better at talking to people:
Practice!
One doesn't learn how to write code without writing code. One also doesn't learn how to tie their shoes without actually tying shoes. So it follows that one doesn't learn how to become good at people without talking to people.
You've gotta go out! And I'm not talking about grabbing a drink and staying on the sidelines or going to that conference and being glued to your Mac the entire time. You've gotta approach people, and you have to get rejected.
People will walk away. People will ask to be excused. This stuff hurts, but just like a startup, you treat the mistakes as learnings and try again next time. It helps a lot to have a buddy that will help you through the process and give you feedback, since learning on your own (like I did) generally sucks.
How did I learn how to talk to people? I approached hundreds of women to start conversations with them during the morning rush and on the street. nothing deep; usually stuff about food. My dating skills improved slightly, but my conversation skills went through the roof.
There are other things to keep in mind, too. People care way more appearance than they let on, so dressing well and staying healthy go a long way to help you be more. Body language is also something that people look out for without knowing that they're looking out for it. Fixing posture goes a long way towards fixing this too.
Yes. Practice is the only way to get better. Unfortunately it's a much more painful practice than most things in life. Code isn't going to get uninterested in you or think you are weird.
Please, don't practice on me. Maybe to some it is fine to approach people and be rejected, but for me it is not ok being interrupted by random strangers.
There was that one time I observed a peculiar quality about a certain CEO. No matter what he was talking about it somehow would always circle back to talking about whatever company he was currently at and the conversation would always end with a joke and hearty laugh for all involved. This happened consistently enough that I thought it was a pre-determined act on his part.
Once I realized he was always practicing I kinda stopped talking to the guy because there was never any genuine interaction. He was always on the job and he was always practicing selling. Every conversation was just another opportunity for him to practice his messaging. I dubbed this mode of interacting and talking ceoesque.
I started relationships at the age of 24, I was really impressed how easy it was for me. I always thought I was some kind of nerd loser, which I still feel I am.
During all my life my method was always to slowly ask personal questions and "open up" people, let them talk about themselves, their job and skills.
What people love is to let them talk about their problems, without criticizing them about it. I think I learned that from therapy. Once you do that, people are hooked and it's a pretty good way to learn about them. It's not manipulative as long as you don't exploit it against them or for your interest, which is really evil (and they will notice it very quickly).
Then of course, you should always open up yourself if the person opened up to you, and that can be difficult, generally you should talk about yourself without necessarily waiting for the other person to ask.
I always felt those things were kind of manipulative, but I asked and it seems they're not.
Everything about this is highly contextual and varies across cultures. Smiling in some situations makes you look powerful, in many others it makes you look weak. Being very animated can make you look carefree in some situations and just wild in others.
The more time I spend in cultures that I didn't grow up in, the more convinced I become that there just aren't any universalities in this direction. Any attempt to do so is to try to generalize over all human behavior and the effort will either be wrong, being that there will be some cultures or situations where the rule doesn't hold, or it'll be useless, essentially telling you what you already know.
I'd like to know the culture where smiling is seen differently. It is the global symbol of happiness and tells everybody on earth "i'm a friend" or at least "i'm friendly".
South-East Asia:
It's okay if you're trying to be friendly with a regular guy but if you're trying to get someone to work for you then you'd be better off not smiling and exchanging pleasantries or they'll rip you off.
"Hey, how are you? How much will you charge to take me 5 kms" would be the wrong approach to take with a taxi driver. Just try to look stoic (but not like an asshole) and you'd be better off.
There are a lot of examples of the differing meaning of a smile when you google it. Sometimes it is simply not appropriate to smile. I'm not sure if there are any culture that sees them as entirely evil, but a few do have a concept of an evil grin, a concept that sits alongside the smiles being friendly. It doesn't seem to be a stretch that a mistimed smile might make you look like a loon and other such differing beliefs.
Of course, when someone tells you his mother died and you smile like an idiot, it surely will not create a positive effect.
The way I understood OP, it seemed as if - in a normal setting - smiling would be frowned upon when talking to people in general in some places... which I find hard to believe.
It is still a sign of happiness there. Only these people do not believe that one can be happy all the time so constant smiling comes off as insincere.
There is a Russian saying "Смех без причины - признак дурочины" — smiling without a reason is a sign of stupidity.
À lot of the discussions here remind me of the book How to Win Friends and Influence People. I recommend it. It's a short and easy read, since there are no technical terms. It's a lot of good examples that show what works and what does not in communicating with others.
Also, check out the list of advice from this book that is probably online somewhere. I think it's important to read the examples in the book to understand the list.
> How can you strategically make a good impression? From the outset, frame the conversation with a few well-rehearsed sentences regarding how you want to be perceived.
Klosterman comes to the same realization in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa-Puffs, though from an unlikely angle--the dawn of reality television.
On The Real World, producers had no time to explain anyone's personality in depth, so they boiled each housemate down to a simple stereotype and selectively edited to play up that caricature. On the one hand, it was a trick of production that was massively distorting and harmful to several (most?) of the housemates.
On the other hand, we're all just like the producers when recalling our own interactions.
Like a 20-minute episode, there's just too much ground to cover to get a perfect reproduction of any person's life in a first meeting. A short working draft is the best anyone can hope for. If you help people form that, you can nudge it in a positive direction while also making yourself more memorable.
In some ways being a person people love to talk to is a burden. It takes time. Sometimes it's worth it. Quite often (and this sounds cold but it's true) it isn't.
Other people do make life good though and it's certainly a valuable skill. Just, it comes at a price.
I've been the recipient of active listening on more than one occasion and it's made me want to tear that persons lungs out through their mouth. It feels like you're the victim of a corrupt bureaucrat's evil stalling tactic.
Then they're doing it wrong - which is not uncommon. When I learned about active listening, there where a number of adults i remembered growing up who actively listened, and they were the most engaging people.
It sounds like you're saying then they're doing it wrong - which is not uncommon. When you learned about active listening, there where a number of adults you remembered growing up who actively listened, and they were the most engaging people.
you were the recipient of people that were terrible and/or just new at active listening. If it's done right, you just feel like you are enjoying the conversation. no different than writing code, playing the piano etc. related, some people are just genuinely interested in other people; that's also not noticeable.
For me, 9 times out of 10, I'm genuinely interested in the other person, and I like to ask questions and actually listen to what they're saying. I find people, even those that some would classify as boring, to be fascinating. Actually, I find that the 'boring' ones can be extra interesting because they usually have some very unusual interests.
For example, I recently met a person who was obsessed with the TV show 'Friends' and spent many hours re-watching episodes. To me, in a world that seems to be becoming increasingly homogenous, it was fascinating. And, even though I'd only seen a few episodes of the show, it was enough for me to latch on and indulge in the pleasure that this person felt about it.
Unfortunately, as time has gone on, I've also sort of lost my interest in many people. Although I can relate to many of their interests and ideas, I have met so many hikers / bikers / runners, cooks / bakers / beer-brewers, foodies, musicians, travelers, photographers, aspiring entrepreneurs lately that I have had a hard time motivating myself to dig any deeper.
Anyway, to your point, I think feigning interest in someone is awful and insincere. And, I refuse to do it. But, if I open myself to actually empathize with them and to indulge in what they're saying, it is very satisfying. Hopefully, I come across as sincere to those people to whom I inquire, because it's genuine curiosity. But, as 'hacking' seems to have gone mainstream, I certainly have seen my share of social pickup artists, and it is irritating.
You can definitely learn charisma. I wouldn't call myself a smooth talker (I'm way too frank), but I've got a presence that people respond to. More importantly, 20 years ago I was basically a shut in with crippling social anxiety.
I've found that the big key is getting your mind in order. You can work forever on what to say, but if your head isn't right it won't work. On the other hand, someone who is totally centered can say the most random things and people will still like them. Old buddhist monks demonstrate this beautifully.
That is going to be a different for everyone. For me, it involved systematically examining my beliefs and feelings, and discarding the ones that didn't serve me. Additionally, I've found that there is a certain flow to life; you can struggle against it, get carried away by it, or harness it. Accepting the way things are and learning to surf the currents rather than raging against them helped a lot.
If you want a shortcut, in terms of interpersonal skills the two highest impact changes for me have been:
1. Derive your personal value entirely from within
2. Develop compassion for other people
If you nail these two changes, you will be attractive. You might not be "persuasive" like a salesman, but that is a specialized skill-set that needs to be developed on its own.
Read The Charisma Myth by Olivia Fox Cabane <https://www.amazon.com/Charisma-Myth-Science-Personal-Magnet.... The myth is that charisma is "natural function of who they are." The reality is that charisma is a set of discrete behaviors, any of which can be analyzed and broken down into steps that anyone can learn.
As the Time article suggests, a huge part of charisma is being a good listener who genuinely makes a conversational partner feel valued. But being a good listener has many different variations and components. Obviously, there are the mechanical parts such as maintaining eye contact and not speaking over the other person. Then the active listening includes phrasing replies in a way that shows that you're empathetic and have actually heard what they've said. And then there's what you bring to the conversation: are you the kind of person who deeply groks what someone's saying and potentially builds on their thoughts to create something amazing in a conversational moment? Do you naturally exude authority about a subject or in a certain environment? Do you see the big picture in a way that inspires people to take their ideas to you to be told why what they're doing is important? Are you a kind, warm person who people open up to when they fear being judged by others?
Everyone has at least a little charisma. This book helps you find it and develop it.
My feeling is it is a bit of both nature/nurture. I do feel you can influence. Some years back on university holidays I did door-to-door sales for ~6 weeks. I noticed at the end I was getting involved in all these conversations with people I wouldn't normally in day-today life. E.g. I'd order a beer at some bar and find myself having chats with the bartender, and genuine we're being friends chats. Something I've never been naturally inclined to do before. It was a fairly positive effect. That said I think it can go the other way as I saw a friend who moved into real estate sales becoming quite sleazy from I'm guessing being surrounded by that say what you need to make a sale culture for a couple years.
hrm... wasn't for me. Not that I'm Mr. Charismatic - but I changed my thinking and perspective of the world, and as a side effect I gained all sorts of charisma from it i've specifically never had before - to the point where I get free food at restaurants I frequent.
To be come charismatic, I think you need to start with your own acceptance. After that, everyone else becomes easier.
But we've been doing it our entire lives. Children learn their parents and learn how to best manipulate them. Men learn what women respond to and try to orient themselves towards that.
Televangelist Robert Tilton manipulated people in an anti-social way - so don't do that. But Bernie Sanders manipulated millions to become politically and socially engaged.
I think for me, the gauge is: if the other person found out I was actively using tactics on them, would they be angry, or accepting and curious? Tact has a lot to do with it, and who you are otherwise.
Did you read the article? It's not really about manipulating other people. It's more a list of basic social graces that some people learn on their own or from their parents, but others need to be taught explicitly.
It's just like anything else; some people can tackle new subjects completely on their own, but almost everybody benefits from good advice. Why should advice on getting along well with others be withheld?
I don't think anybody intends to be a bore or a jerk, yet obviously some people are. It affects their lives profoundly, and they may lead lonely lives. Withholding advice on how they could be more likable, if they're so inclined, seems a little cruel. If you'd use the same advice to manipulate people, that's on you.
On the other hand, prompting people to talk about themselves, assuming you actually listen, doesn't seem terrible to me. I suppose there's a line between purposefully trying to make an impression and hacking people.
Communication skills aren't about manipulation, and if you think of it that way you'll be a bad communicator unless you're a sociopath. Instead, think of interactions as an opportunity to create happiness. If you make people happy when you talk to them good things will come to you.
No, it does feel weird, especially when we suppose that the "hacked" person derive no benefit from being "hacked." However, if the "hacker" provides more value to the "hacked" person than the "hacker" captures as a result, the "hacked" person might be OK with the exchange.
This sounds a bit more OK to me, but still the notion of manipulating others does get under my skin.
In a sense it is manipulative to consciously direct someone else's behavior in a way that benefits you. But interacting with people is rarely a zero-sum game. Whatever benefit you derive, warm feelings and enjoying the person they are talking to are both things that the other person probably wants from the conversation as well.
If you go into a conversation and the result is that the other person thinks you are uninteresting and they don't have anything to say, it is negative for everyone involved. Productive conversations are usually productive for both people, it's not likely that you are somehow sapping away something that belonged to another person, rather that you are turning time spent by both parties into something of value to both of you instead of wasting it.
It's much more about giving up the attempt to hack people. The last three sentences of the article sum it up well:
Stop trying to impress people or "win" the conversation. It's really much simpler than that. Just listen intently and make people feel good about themselves.
Nah, me too, but I've eventually learned that everyone else expects me to be hacking them slightly. They also expect that they're hacking me, and get pretty shocked when it turns out some of their social graces were flying completely over my head.
The idea is uncomfortable to me at least. I think it's useful to learn better social skills, but there's a risk of being less genuine when the approach is geared towards people specifically liking you.
Dale Carnegie, this article, et. al describe various methods to be liked, listened to, etc. that all basically revolve around the idea that you should make the conversation about them and their needs. Even smiling is a small step away from outright saying you like them and are willing to listen.
One thing I've found though is that this can be mentally exhausting. It starts to feel like the people around you are starving for attention and suddenly they've found an oasis of it.
But over even a short time the entropy of being on the giving end of nearly every interaction with someone creates a sort of mental energy vacuum.
Certainly I can't be the only one who has experienced this -- how do you maintain your energy or sense of self when you are consistently trying to meet other people's needs?
> how do you maintain your energy or sense of self when you are consistently trying to meet other people's needs?
Some people thrive off interactions like this, I think. If that's not you (and I count myself in that category also) then I think the "best" compromise might be to turn it on only when and where it matters (even though that sounds awful and self-serving). That probably means with valued friends and close family, and people you're trying to impress for some reason (personal or professional).
It is mentally exhausting, and I think it's highly underappreciated just how exhausting it is to listen to/deal with other peoples' problems as a manager in any capacity - especially when you yourself are not able to vent (either because of privity or because no one else understands).
This is why delegation is so important. As an organization grows, it literally becomes impossible to manage everyone by yourself. But enlisting talented managers who understand these concepts helps to alleviate this issue.
To answer your final questions, maintaining energy requires deliberate planning of the energy you expend in other areas. For me, I rarely drink because alcohol has undefined impact on my energy levels (I get tired, and it's not like a video game that I can flip a switch and be awake and ready). But more importantly, organizing your activities between <energy consuming> and <energy restoring> has been particularly helpful for me. Once I took the time to understand what takes energy from me and what restores it, I was able to experiment with planning my days to ensure that I have enough energy to expend, while maximizing the energy I do expend.
Part of "showing a sincere interest in the other person" can be interrupting their monologue to ask them a specific question that redirects the conversation to something of more mutual interest (or any interest.) You don't have to be a rug they wipe their feet on, you can stand up for yourself and what might be of interest to you, just keep it about them somehow. If they decide you're a horrible person 'cause they just wanna monologue about complaint X (not common, but it happens) or don't want any input from you of any kind including a question about them, it's time to move on. Most people just need a little bump to make them a better conversationalist.
Most people do understand at some level that a conversation is a mutual agreement to discuss the matter at hand, and the agreement part is necessary.
By focusing on your own needs above all else. Don't worry about befriending everyone. Be authentic and find people who like you for you actually are, not because you manipulated them into it.
I highly recommend checking out "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World".
Is it just me or is this just a hidden advertisement for the book "It's Not All About "Me": The Top Ten Techniques for Building Quick Rapport with Anyone" by Robin Dreke [1]?
The book is mentioned (and linked) several times in the article and in articles the article itself cites as sources (and links to).
"Ask people questions since people love talking about themselves" is common conversational advice I hear.
In general I agree, but it's a bit disheartening when you realize that many people are so happy to talk about themselves that they never bother to ask you about yourself.
I feel like this article is outlining how to fake a lot of things... It emphasizes rote lines. It feels shallow. However, I think it hints at what it takes to be a good conversationalist: a deep and genuine interest in people. That coupled with a broad knowledge allows you to find what someone is interested in and learn from their perspective while adding some to theirs. This is the core of solid communication and conversation.
This one is the best from my recent readings. Communication is one of the important aspect of every soul prevailing on earth and we / humans are special one. Now from the business standpoint, it is always better to have good communicator who can negotiate with properly. I just want to add my words at the 'Silence' section; my viewpoints say, silence can be better than words sometimes.
As an introvert and someone who cares about my privacy and doesn't like to reveal personal details, I find it easier to simply keep the conversational ball in the other person's court.
This seems to equal being a good listener.
The trick is to learn to close the conversation when you are done with it, and avoid useless prattle from the other person.
I should also add that for me, and probably for most people like me, the process of figurimg out what people like and dont like is also partly a process of self discovery. Im not the kind of person thats in touch with himself. Discovering how your words impact other people will also teach you about how your mind, conciously or otherwise, reacts emotionally to the words of others. Overall ive been genuinely excited to learn about myself amd others and use that wisdom to help enjoy the presence of other people. For me its been a very productive process of growth and discovery. I think framing the problem of interpersonal relations within that context instead of the cringey, manipulative context of internet social tips really helped.