5 ms·

Yep, this article is a re-hash of what Dale Carnegie started teaching over 100 years ago. My main takeaway from that class was to ask enough questions when I me

by jobu 9y ago

Yep, this article is a re-hash of what Dale Carnegie started teaching over 100 years ago. My main takeaway from that class was to ask enough questions when I meet someone so that I can to steer the conversation toward a mutual interest. After that the personal connection is made and conversation is fun and easy. The best way to make an impression on someone is to ask questions about them until you find some

mindcrime 9y ago
The best way to make an impression on someone is to ask questions about them until you find some Yes, but you have to be careful or you can make the person feel like they are being interrogated. Maybe not quite to the level of shining a bright light in their face and asking "where were you at 8:00pm on the night of January 23rd", but still, an endless stream of questions - done poorly - can make people feel uncomfortable even if it is true that "people love talking about themselves". You may laugh at this, but some of the best advice I've heard on this subject came from Kezia Noble, a lady who teaches "pickup artist" material. Except... she bills herself as part of that world, but in reality her material is just general conversation skills which can be applied in pretty much any context. I don't feel like trying to type up a complete rehash / summary of her technique here, but a big part of it involves distinguishing between "high value" answers to questions, and "low value" answers, and figuring out how to branch off from the high value answers in a way that keeps the other person engaged. There's also an element about making statements instead of just asking questions, etc. Just to illustrate, here's a really made up example of how this might go: You: "So, where did you go to school?" Them: "Berkeley" (reasonably high value answer, but what to do with it??) You: "Oh. So... what did you major in?" Them: "Economics." (again, good answer, but can you do something with it?) You: "Oh. Ah. Cool. So you must like math, huh?" Them: "no". ("yes", "no", etc. are usually low value answers that don't lead naturally to anything else) You: "Oh. Right. SO, um... do you like fishing?" Them: "What? No. What is this, an interview?" --------- On the other hand, here's how it could go: You: "So, where did you go to school?" Them: "Berkeley" You: "Nice. Why did you pick Berkeley?" Them: "Well, it has a reputation for great academics and a tradition of activism." You: "Oh, yeah. My school ($WHATEVER) had a great academics as well, but not much activism." (statement instead of a question) Them: "Activism is really important to me, especially around climate change. I wouldn't have gone to a school that didn't have that aspect." You: "Cool. So what did you major in?" Them: "Economics." You: "Ah... so what's the connection between economics and climate change?" -------- Anyway, you can kind of see the pattern. Elicit more complex responses, make statements, lead off of their complex answers, don't just suddenly branch off to something unrelated, etc.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Them: "Activism is really important to me, especially around climate change. I wouldn't have gone to a school that didn't have that aspect." Off topic, but this is so cringe-worthy...
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    ...Why? I'm actually genuinely curious why you feel that way, assuming the person is sincere.
    - hueving 9y ago
      If you care about climate change, having protects in one of the biggest echo chambers in the US university system is about the least effective thing you can do. It's also completely unrelated to the quality of education you will get so it's stupid to tie your school selection to that. It's like choosing a campus based on one with the most red-colored buildings.
      - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        Two points: 1. I parsed the statement slightly differently, in that having a campus full of activism was important, not specifically climate change. 2. Activism requires learning and networking, so it makes sense that if you want to learn that skill and form a network fresh out of high school, you would go somewhere there's an established network to join and many mentors to be found. It's much more like choosing a school because their alumni organization has connections you're interested in or has business ties to an industry you want to get in to or has a famous athletics program or any of the not-strictly-academic reasons that make sense from a career development perspective. If the person seriously wants to be an activist, even in a non-professional capacity, it makes sense to go somewhere they develop that part of you (even if they don't have the best academics). It's nothing like choosing one based on red building count.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      For one, because where you go to college and whether the school has some student level "activism" about climate change has zero (or even negative) impact on actual climate change.
cookiecaper 9y ago
Carnegie's book boils down to one important principle, which he mentions but doesn't necessarily emphasize. The key to winning friends and influencing people: make them feel important. The rest of it is details, and probably details you've heard a lot before, since the culture has had a long time to internalize HTWFAIP (still a good read). Our egos drive our behavior. The best way to boil Carnegie down is to always ask "Is the person's sense of importance going to be flattered or offended by this? How can I phrase it in a way that will at least not offend their importance, if I can't flatter it?" This was a really good handle for me because I do believe that everyone is [potentially] important, and it makes sense to me that we should respect that fact in all interactions. It makes sense that people would avoid those who damage their own sense of self-importance, which they have every right to have. This realization took away a lot of the reticence I felt around hand-crafted social experiences. It doesn't really require you to be untruthful in any way, or prevent you from getting your point across; it just gives a good guideline for how to do so sensitively. Don't know if it will click for anyone else, but that's what did it for me.
- scandinavegan 9y ago
  Thanks for the summary. I haven't read the book yet, but I'll have to sometime. It's interesting that on one side you have Carnegie's "make them feel important to make them interested in you" and on the other side you have the pick-up artists' (I'm not defending them) "neg them to make them interested in you". In one variant you lift the other person up and in the other you push them down, both with the idea of wanting them to talk to you more. I've heard that men that tease each other (in one sense making them feel less important) in groups do it as a bonding experience, because the fact that you can tease the other person without them punching you is a sign that you're members of the same group. On the other hand, gently teasing someone in a group can make them feel more important as well, since you're suggesting that they're important enough to deserve being teased. With Carnegie on one side and the pick-up artists on the other, I'll obviously side with Carnegie's more positive view of human interactions. It also fits well with a tenet in improvisational theater that you should always make the other actor look good. You both benefit from that, especially if they do the same to you. If you make them look good, the audience thinks you're both good, and the other actor will want to play more scenes with you. It seems like an obvious suggestion, but what it does is it shifts your focus from what you can do to look good yourself to what you can do to make the other person look good, which is often a lot easier anyway. It takes you out of your own head and makes you more attentive and focused on the other person, so that you can respond to and amplify the good thing they do.

by jobu 9y ago

mindcrime 9y ago

The best way to make an impression on someone is to ask questions about them until you find some Yes, but you have to be careful or you can make the person feel like they are being interrogated. Maybe not quite to the level of shining a bright light in their face and asking "where were you at 8:00pm on the night of January 23rd", but still, an endless stream of questions - done poorly - can make people feel uncomfortable even if it is true that "people love talking about themselves". You may laugh at this, but some of the best advice I've heard on this subject came from Kezia Noble, a lady who teaches "pickup artist" material. Except... she bills herself as part of that world, but in reality her material is just general conversation skills which can be applied in pretty much any context. I don't feel like trying to type up a complete rehash / summary of her technique here, but a big part of it involves distinguishing between "high value" answers to questions, and "low value" answers, and figuring out how to branch off from the high value answers in a way that keeps the other person engaged. There's also an element about making statements instead of just asking questions, etc. Just to illustrate, here's a really made up example of how this might go: You: "So, where did you go to school?" Them: "Berkeley" (reasonably high value answer, but what to do with it??) You: "Oh. So... what did you major in?" Them: "Economics." (again, good answer, but can you do something with it?) You: "Oh. Ah. Cool. So you must like math, huh?" Them: "no". ("yes", "no", etc. are usually low value answers that don't lead naturally to anything else) You: "Oh. Right. SO, um... do you like fishing?" Them: "What? No. What is this, an interview?" --------- On the other hand, here's how it could go: You: "So, where did you go to school?" Them: "Berkeley" You: "Nice. Why did you pick Berkeley?" Them: "Well, it has a reputation for great academics and a tradition of activism." You: "Oh, yeah. My school ($WHATEVER) had a great academics as well, but not much activism." (statement instead of a question) Them: "Activism is really important to me, especially around climate change. I wouldn't have gone to a school that didn't have that aspect." You: "Cool. So what did you major in?" Them: "Economics." You: "Ah... so what's the connection between economics and climate change?" -------- Anyway, you can kind of see the pattern. Elicit more complex responses, make statements, lead off of their complex answers, don't just suddenly branch off to something unrelated, etc.

coldtea 9y ago
>Them: "Activism is really important to me, especially around climate change. I wouldn't have gone to a school that didn't have that aspect." Off topic, but this is so cringe-worthy...
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  ...Why? I'm actually genuinely curious why you feel that way, assuming the person is sincere.
  - hueving 9y ago
    If you care about climate change, having protects in one of the biggest echo chambers in the US university system is about the least effective thing you can do. It's also completely unrelated to the quality of education you will get so it's stupid to tie your school selection to that. It's like choosing a campus based on one with the most red-colored buildings.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Two points: 1. I parsed the statement slightly differently, in that having a campus full of activism was important, not specifically climate change. 2. Activism requires learning and networking, so it makes sense that if you want to learn that skill and form a network fresh out of high school, you would go somewhere there's an established network to join and many mentors to be found. It's much more like choosing a school because their alumni organization has connections you're interested in or has business ties to an industry you want to get in to or has a famous athletics program or any of the not-strictly-academic reasons that make sense from a career development perspective. If the person seriously wants to be an activist, even in a non-professional capacity, it makes sense to go somewhere they develop that part of you (even if they don't have the best academics). It's nothing like choosing one based on red building count.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    For one, because where you go to college and whether the school has some student level "activism" about climate change has zero (or even negative) impact on actual climate change.

cookiecaper 9y ago

Carnegie's book boils down to one important principle, which he mentions but doesn't necessarily emphasize. The key to winning friends and influencing people: make them feel important. The rest of it is details, and probably details you've heard a lot before, since the culture has had a long time to internalize HTWFAIP (still a good read). Our egos drive our behavior. The best way to boil Carnegie down is to always ask "Is the person's sense of importance going to be flattered or offended by this? How can I phrase it in a way that will at least not offend their importance, if I can't flatter it?" This was a really good handle for me because I do believe that everyone is [potentially] important, and it makes sense to me that we should respect that fact in all interactions. It makes sense that people would avoid those who damage their own sense of self-importance, which they have every right to have. This realization took away a lot of the reticence I felt around hand-crafted social experiences. It doesn't really require you to be untruthful in any way, or prevent you from getting your point across; it just gives a good guideline for how to do so sensitively. Don't know if it will click for anyone else, but that's what did it for me.

scandinavegan 9y ago
Thanks for the summary. I haven't read the book yet, but I'll have to sometime. It's interesting that on one side you have Carnegie's "make them feel important to make them interested in you" and on the other side you have the pick-up artists' (I'm not defending them) "neg them to make them interested in you". In one variant you lift the other person up and in the other you push them down, both with the idea of wanting them to talk to you more. I've heard that men that tease each other (in one sense making them feel less important) in groups do it as a bonding experience, because the fact that you can tease the other person without them punching you is a sign that you're members of the same group. On the other hand, gently teasing someone in a group can make them feel more important as well, since you're suggesting that they're important enough to deserve being teased. With Carnegie on one side and the pick-up artists on the other, I'll obviously side with Carnegie's more positive view of human interactions. It also fits well with a tenet in improvisational theater that you should always make the other actor look good. You both benefit from that, especially if they do the same to you. If you make them look good, the audience thinks you're both good, and the other actor will want to play more scenes with you. It seems like an obvious suggestion, but what it does is it shifts your focus from what you can do to look good yourself to what you can do to make the other person look good, which is often a lot easier anyway. It takes you out of your own head and makes you more attentive and focused on the other person, so that you can respond to and amplify the good thing they do.