3 ms·

> I'm friendly, agreeable, and try my best to positive. But that's analogous to me being a good sport: that's great and all, but when it comes time to choose wh

> I'm friendly, agreeable, and try my best to positive. But that's analogous to me being a good sport: that's great and all, but when it comes time to choose who bats on your team, you want someone good at sports. That bit threw me for a loop a bit since "a good sport" isn't someone who is good at sports, it's rather someone, well, friendly, agreeable and positive.

wincy 6y ago
I think it’s a rather clever word play, and he’s indicating that people prefer competence over friendliness. Which in social situations often isn’t actually true. Most people don’t like being around insufferable people even if they’re brilliant (take Nassim Taleb as an example. However people can’t just ignore someone like Taleb, even if they’d really like to, because he’s been so RIGHT about so many things, which exposes the flaws in their thinking.
- qfqefh 6y ago
  Being friendly, polite, and positive are easy. If you're kind and not demanding, people won't mind you and will probably find you fairly likeable. But that's not enough for people to actually want to spend time with you; you have to bring more to the table, e.g. insightful cultural commentary, to make people laugh, or some sort of common ground. Navigating conversations to find common ground is much easier said than done. Doubly so for telling engaging and relatable stories to convey a sense of shared experience. So I don't mean a preference for professional competence, but a preference for "social competence", acknowledging of course that it's also highly dependent on the culture. To get more personal, I've been called "boring", "transparent", "predictable", "two dimensional". I think I'm probably more engaging than a script programmed to regurgitate platitudes, but some of my critics have suggested not by much!

3 ms·

> I'm friendly, agreeable, and try my best to positive. But that's analogous to me being a good sport: that's great and all, but when it comes time to choose wh

by pilsetnieks 6y ago

wincy 6y ago
I think it’s a rather clever word play, and he’s indicating that people prefer competence over friendliness. Which in social situations often isn’t actually true. Most people don’t like being around insufferable people even if they’re brilliant (take Nassim Taleb as an example. However people can’t just ignore someone like Taleb, even if they’d really like to, because he’s been so RIGHT about so many things, which exposes the flaws in their thinking.
- qfqefh 6y ago
  Being friendly, polite, and positive are easy. If you're kind and not demanding, people won't mind you and will probably find you fairly likeable. But that's not enough for people to actually want to spend time with you; you have to bring more to the table, e.g. insightful cultural commentary, to make people laugh, or some sort of common ground. Navigating conversations to find common ground is much easier said than done. Doubly so for telling engaging and relatable stories to convey a sense of shared experience. So I don't mean a preference for professional competence, but a preference for "social competence", acknowledging of course that it's also highly dependent on the culture. To get more personal, I've been called "boring", "transparent", "predictable", "two dimensional". I think I'm probably more engaging than a script programmed to regurgitate platitudes, but some of my critics have suggested not by much!