10 ms·

How Studying Body Language Changed the Way I Socialize

188 points by philipkd 14y ago

corporalagumbo 14y ago
"I feel like Neo at the end of The Matrix now." As much as I hate to admit it, I can identify with this. Becoming socially literate for me too has felt and continues to feel almost like a superpower. That "Wow! I can't believe I can do this!" feeling is a bit of a rush. I think what the author is describing is something of a growing trend. It has become relatively easy to make it through to adulthood with very low social intelligence. Society (school and parents, both quite possibly lacking in social intelligence in their own right) reward you for high analytical intelligence, and technologies (videogames for instance) help us function OK without the close groups and social ties which used to be so important in pre-industrial societies. But the further you go into life, the harder it is to proceed, succeed and be happy with a major deficit in social intelligence. Luckily, just as social intelligence is taught implicitly by parents who possess it to their children, so can anyone learn it themselves. It really is a learnable skill! And the shift to valuing it is a good swing of the pendulum back from the excesses of "pure" rationalism (quote marks because a system of rationality that doesn't value geting along with others is not very rational in my books). I think emotional/social literacy is perhaps even more fundamental than our other "traditional" literacies. We've just forgotten the habit as a society of teaching it to our children. Speaking of books, "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman is fantastic for this stuff. Psychotherapy is also very, very useful (if of course it's with a good therapist). Edit: One more thing. I was standing outside a computer room after hours at my university recently, trying to get in. There's this swipe card device that you have to swipe your student ID past to unlock the door, and I've always struggled to get this particular device to work, compared to others around campus. So this night while I'm swiping fruitlessly away a girl and a guy come up and stand there waiting for me. After a couple of seconds the girl says "Maybe if you try swiping it in the middle it will help." I do and instantly it works. Problem solved. What really hit me was the way this girl phrased her comment. I've seen her in this same room many times late at night, and she clearly knew exactly what I was doing wrong. She could easily have achieved the exact same result many other ways - "You need to swipe it in the middle" - "Don't you have any idea what you're doing?" "Here, let me do that" "No, that's wrong, you should do this." Instead she phrased it as a gentle suggestion, without explicitly confirming that it was what I needed to do. Phrasing it that way let me choose to take the suggestion without sacrificing my autonomy, gave me an option to turn the suggestion down without face, and even let me take some of the credit for getting it right. All in all, it was a deft response to a situation where someone else may easily have caused offence with inconsiderate phrasing. Not a big deal in its own right, but small moments like that stack up. As a result this girl clearly goes through life much more smoothly than the people described in this article. So while maybe she can't blitz a test or an essay like a more analytically-minded person, I think her "soft" skill is incredibly, incredibly valuable - I think analytically-minded people have much to learn from people like her.
- jerf 14y ago
  One of my favorite character arcs in all of literature is that of Spock's, from that stereotyped "rationality" through developing his own comfort with human emotions. Even as from the outside, it seems little has changed, the initial Spock and the final Spock are very different people. Kirk's journey is flashier and easier to find in the story, but far more trite and it's been done a hundred times. I don't know of very many parallels to the Spock arc. I grew up with Star Trek but I find I didn't really "get it" until much later in life. I wish the Original Series wasn't so painful to watch because of its superficial flaws, because while I would not presume to say it's the "best" Star Trek, it probably is the most legitimately "literary" at its best.
- the_cat_kittles 14y ago
  I have had a growing hypothesis that my social intelligence with acquaintances and big groups (as opposed to close friends) is actually very bad. As is probably the case with most of us here, I didn't suspect this because my intelligence in all other arenas is excellent. I think I was further insulated from the problem because I was in small schools through high school, and never really felt socially deficient as a result. In the 8 or so years since then, being thrust into more circumstances where I don't already know everyone, I have really started to notice it. In some ways, (if my hypothesis is true) realizing what the problem is has been a huge relief- I'm no longer mystified about why some people seem to have large social networks, and I have a small one. It's almost like someone finding out they were colorblind, and then realizing that maybe that was the reason they didn't really like some visual art that everyone else seemed to love. But, I'm still unsure how to approach this problem. This article gives me some hope, but not too many specifics. My working relationships are all excellent, however. Its more just the "hanging out" with people my age, and finding social groups. I suck at that. Does someone with similar experiences want to chime in?
  - bytefactory 14y ago
    Excellent question, and one I would love an answer to as well! I am very comfortable working with people, and get along great with everyone. I would go as far as to say I'm usually quite an important part of most groups I am a part of, once everybody gets to know me. The thing that frustrates me, however, is how few people I end up "hanging out" with, and really enjoy the company of. I put that down to a sort of "social fatigue" because of my being an introvert. I'd be curious to see if this is a problem anybody else has managed to conquer.
crag 14y ago
I always had trouble figuring out how to behave or what to say in public settings. Trying my best to be the nicest guy in the room, but ending up coming off aloof and arrogant. Until I learned the fine art of chit-chat. I had an old Army buddy who was a master at chit-chat. He was a lawyer, of course. Anyway he'd drag me to parties, take me by the arm and work the room. It was an amazing show. Listening to his conversations and watching his body language I learned how to be non-offensive and how it was ok to talk about nothing important at all. And that was my biggest huddle; learning that most people in social settings don't want to be serious. That that wasn't the point.
wallflower 14y ago
You might also like this Less Wrong essay: "Defecting by accident is lacking the awareness, tact, and skill to realize what the secondary effects of your actions are and act accordingly to win." http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_common_to_analytical/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_com...
- wylie 14y ago
  Thanks for this link, I liked how it gave specific examples of behavior to correct, all of which I could recognize from personal experience. Particularly this one, when asking questions: Instead of your underlying point coming across as "your idea is unfeasible," it comes across as, "You've brought this good idea to us, and I hope we're smart enough to make it work."
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  The interesting thing for me reading this article was, when I got to the section where he discusses comments on his post, I couldn't help but think, "Damn, the internet would be so BORING if everyone was that nice all the time." What would be the fun of an internet where everyone is so positive and generous all the time? Maybe I'm just addicted to intellectual sparring. Who knows.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Intellectual sparring doesn't necessitate being not nice.
    - corporalagumbo 14y ago
      True, but a sharp debate can be quite delicious.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        This isn't a "but". A good debate is characterized by mutual respect. Otherwise, points go unadvanced beyond their initial assertion, because they aren't properly challenged. There is an important reason that the most commonly called-out fallacy is the argumentum ad hominem; its usage undermines the debate itself. It also happens to be the internet's favorite tactic, and it's a huge part of why the internet is not good at getting things done. Honestly, the Internet and the world at large is missing out on many, many possibilities for "intellectual sparring" because they've made it extremely debate-hostile in the name of having fun and "can't you take a joke". People would rather cram things down by force or not at all, because if they open the floor to conversation, their ideas will be lost in the haze of personal accusation. I wasn't able to find a list, but there are a lot of women bloggers who have signed off for good because harassment created a cost in time and energy that outweighed the benefit of contributing to the public debate. Be honest with yourself. Recognize that what you really enjoy is the gamesmanship of one-line zingers. Don't call it a debate until you can tell me what the Ps and Qs are.
jpeterson 14y ago
I've tried stuff like this. The problem is that my brain gives me wrong/negative interpretations of the other person's emotions most of the time, and I leave almost every social interaction feeling like a failure. This naturally feeds back on itself. Anyone else dealt with something similar?
- ajays 14y ago
  I hear you. I do feel that, like many other skills, this also can be learned and mastered. There have been times when I've been pretty adept at recognizing and responding to signals. But over the past few years, I have lapsed. Just as an example: today, at a talk, I was talking to this woman and we had a pleasant conversation. Then, as the talk is about to start, she says something to the effect of "I'd love to learn more about your work". My response (with a mouthful of pizza)? "Sure!". And then I focused back on the speaker as he was about to start speaking. Much later I realized she wanted to continue the conversation later, and wanted my card or some contact info. But by then she was gone (she left early). So, for me, it's not that I don't pick up signals; I do pick up many, but they have a much lower priority in the brain's CPU and my responses don't incorporate the signals. My brain finally realizes the inputs way after the opportunity has passed.
- mtrimpe 14y ago
  I never heard it phrased that way but yes, I feel the exact same way. I realize now that I've learned to 'lean into the discomfort,' but I still have those feelings almost all the time...
jakejake 14y ago
At least for myself, I think there's a gray area between being socially awkward and being selfish. And if the selfishness is not intentional then I might even call it self-ignorance. I had the good fortune in my 20's of hanging around an uncle who was amazingly charismatic - the type that lights up the room, as they say. I tried to emulate him for a while and of course it never really worked all that well for me. But I did become more aware of my own habits. Before that I had always thought I was a pretty considerate person. It took some self analysis to realize that I was pretty stingy with compliments and I didn't really take much interest in what other people were doing. I didn't do thoughtful things for people very often. A lot of times I think I still don't do enough but I'm a lot more aware of it now. The sad thing is that it really doesn't take that much. Some people seem to get it earlier than others but it took me into my 20's before I really became aware of how I treated other people.
cyphersanctus 14y ago
When you want to apply these things during a negotiation. http://www.academia.edu/425074/The_Nonverbal_Skills_You_Need_for_Successful_Negotiation http://www.academia.edu/425074/The_Nonverbal_Skills_You_Need...
Futurebot 14y ago
No question about the practical value of any of this, as the power of these abilities has been discussed and dissected many times, but I'd like to make a brief case as to _why_ some find this distasteful, after many years of reading forums like this and talking to people who openly expressed hatred of it (it being non-verbal signals, subtext, etc.) First, there is the issue of merit. It seems like this grants those with good social intelligence an "unfair" advantage, since the skills involved aren't involved in actually creating/fixing/understanding anything concrete; its power comes from its ability to persaude, detect, and signal. Some perceive this sort of skill as seeming fake and superficial. Second, it flies in the face of the idea of radical honesty and transparency, as it deals with situations and ideas having to do with saying one thing (or nothing at all) but meaning another. This feels very dishonest, and ugly. Some would like to live in a world where absolutely everything is completely explicitly stated, and no one gets offended, but uses everything said as a learning experience. This may seem naive (because the ability to think and say things others may find subjectively offensive is great), but the desire persists nonetheless. I'm personally torn on the subject, as both ways have their serious negatives, but it's worth stating here anyway.
- PakG1 14y ago
  I can appreciate why this comment is so up-voted. It's easy for us to think in terms of black and white, binary, here are the lines, true and false if statements. But on both points, the analysis is still coming from the same mindset/framework of thinking. On the issue of merit, if you can't communicate about the merit, the merit might as well not exist. In a case where someone has merit to solve a problem, but not the social skills to properly communicate, the person is very similar to a computer program that can receive input and provide output. Computers are great at following instructions to the letter, so much that if they do something wrong, it's usually the user's fault. But how often do we realize now that a program was designed ineffectively so that we now blame the application rather than the user (see any industrial design review), and how often do we wish we could implement machine learning capabilities that would allow the application to correctly guess what the user is really trying to do? People have the ability to adapt social interactions to the user (call it better AI) and also provide this dyanmic feedback (call it machine learning). We can rise above the level of dumb computers that receive input, provide output, and then blame the user if the output isn't actually what the user was looking for. On the issue of radical honesty and transparency, and feeling very dishonest and ugly. I really can appreciate this, I can. But in learning to be empathetic to others (especially my mother, whose mind operates in a totally different manner than my own, leading to many arguments with her when I was younger and I'll admit more immature), I realize that for them not taking into considerations someone's feelings is equally ugly. The words I usually hear are "You don't know anything about my problem, stop acting like you do." Basically in such interactions, I'm not helping, even if I'm right. If we want to speak about merit, the true test should not be my level of knowledge, but rather, did I solve the problem? If I can't solve the problem, how much is my merit really worth? That reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/793/ http://xkcd.com/793/
nckbz 14y ago
The importance of learning some sort of social intelligence is so underrated. You see all these front page posts on hacker news "I taught my 5 year old son and daughter how to program in five different languages" like its something that will really better these children's lives. You want a happy successful kid? Teach them the art of being social and having meaningful interactions with other people. I've wasted so much of my life trying to be the best student or programmer I could possibly be. I turned 24 this year and I'm proud of how well I've done and what I've accomplished in my career to date, but without friends to enjoy it with, success is pretty shallow.
wccrawford 14y ago
I appear to be the odd man out, here. I have always felt empathy for others. I've always been able to put myself in their shoes. I went through my "Neo in the Matrix" period long, long ago. Long before the Matrix came out. I was able to manipulate people like it was nothing. One day, I realized how unethical that was. I was toying with other people for my own ends. And so, like a comic book character, I started using my powers for good. When I manipulate people now, it's for their good, not mine. For example, people generally do not take advice, no matter how good it is. But you can manipulate them into it. Like Inception, you have to make it at least partially their idea. You ask them pointed questions that have only 1 answer. Of course, they'll come up with that answer. It's now their idea. Strong-willed people can still resist it. But these are the people that have always been hardest to help, anyhow. If you've tried your best, you can't feel bad for failing to help them. They simply won't let you.
borplk 14y ago
Is that what you really want? To me it's just promoting the manipulation of other people. Because hey, it's a skill so it's ok. Doesn't it bother you? To know that the person you are talking to, is mirroring your emotions, or offering sympathy, to manipulate you into liking them? I very much prefer the Aspergers-like honesty. I would rather hear 9 harsh, blunt, honest criticisms a day and 1 genuine complement than to receive 10 fake, sugar-coated, vague, manipulative signals. Don't think you'll be the only mastermind learning these and no one else will know about it. Keep in mind, if you do it, if you apply these techniques in your day to day interactions so will other people. And think about it for a second, from the perspective of a subject. Do you really want to be the subject to these social tricks and manipulations? This thought truly bothers me. To hear a complement and not knowing if it was true and genuine or I was complemented simply because that person had read "How to influence people and win friends" last week and wanted to try his manipulation techniques on me. Maybe instead of promoting these social skills we need to promote the appreciation of honesty and having some self control over our emotions.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I think you are making the distinction because someone learned it consciously. People who have high social skills likely do this stuff all the time, perhaps without realising it. Of course people will speak negatively about "manipulating people" but the fact is that it's simply part of how the world goes round, in which case it's probably best to be one of the people who is skilled and resolve to use your powers for good. The alternative would be trying to persuade highly sociable people to imitate aspies. You can try and persuade everyone to be honest, but in a world full of honest people being the only liar will bring huge advantages.
- graeme 14y ago
  Faking this stuff doesn't work well in the long run. How to win friends and influence people says to give people genuine compliments. I've gone through this kind of transportation. Certainly doesn't feel malicious to me. The main result is that people are a lot happier to be around me. Your argument feels analogous to someone worried by the teaching of logic. The students will become too clever and use their skills to outsmart the others. I've seen hustlers use these skills for malice of course. Some get fooled by them, but they're pretty transparent to most people if used insincerely.
TinyBig 14y ago
The book mentioned in the article, "Definitive Book of Body Language" is an excellent resource. However, it is more of an encyclopedia - comprehensive, but lacking in context. I began this journey some years ago and found Navarro's "What Every Body is Saying" a more helpful starting place. Gives a framework to help understand body language, something that may prove helpful if you are starting from square zero.
Buzaga 14y ago
no evidence - no science... asperger can no longer be "a thing" soon, as it seems it will be removed from the next DSM... so these people either have nothing or are mild autistic or something. it also appears that 20% of ppl 'diagnosed' with this 'grow out of it' "it is nearly impossible to diagnose accurately, indeed statistics show that about 20% of those given the diagnosis later "grow out of it" and show no symptoms as adults, which admits the possibility that they were misdiagnosed in the first place. Also there have been many reports of opportunistic diagnosis of this syndrome in people who were simply different than their peers." http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html
skat_et_dieu 14y ago
I really enjoyed reading this article. It was almost as if I was reading about myself!! Naturally I am very introverted. I also love sitting back and studying social interactions that are happening around me. I have a lot of friends who see me as an unemotional robot. For example, a good friend from high school died in a motorcycle accident a few months ago. I was very calm showing very little worry or stress about it when I found out. My friends who were there were kind of shocked by how calm and worry free I was about it. To me, logically there was nothing I could do to bring him back so why worry about it? At the funeral there was some crying and mourning for him but that was it. But even though I don't show a lot of emotions I do have a way to look into people's eyes as we have a conversation and I am able to meet them emotionally. I start to create rapport by talking at the level and speed as them. Make sure they feel listened when they talk by giving back feedback. It really works very nicely. I'm a programmer with not much care to show emotions but meeting people emotionally is one of the most powerful things you can do in your social life.
dkarl 14y ago
When I notice a conversation veering into an unpleasant territory, I perk up, do the empathy-thing, and I naturally bring it back to something more pleasant. I'm not comfortable with this as a general strategy stemming from a universal mantra. Learning this as an adult is impressive and probably exceptional, but it's a phenomenon we're all familiar with. We all know people who behave like this reflexively and have done so their entire adult lives. It can be pleasant to hang out with people like that in a heterogeneous group where not everyone is comfortable with everyone else, but they make damned unsatisfying friends and lovers. Policing comfort zones is a sure-fire intimacy killer, and it isn't exactly a triumph of empathy to avoid uncomfortable topics of conversation, even if it requires prodigious skill at empathy. Children of troubled and violent households, such as Bill Clinton, are the poster children for glib empathy that is a mile wide and an inch deep. (No political aspersions meant, by the way; I liked him as a politician and a president.) I would argue that in this case we are seeing a misguided (and probably temporary) "zeal of the convert", and by convert I mean someone who has discovered the practical value of this Clintonesque "emotional easing." Emotional easing is much like quantitative easing: it shifts unpleasantness out of the current context. It's a valuable tool, but it can't be applied universally. I'm not comfortable calling it empathy, either. "Perking up" when another person's uncomfortable emotions come to the fore and steering the conversation away teaches them that their problems are their own, and that their full selves are excluded while a partial self (with unpleasantness filtered out) is welcome. That's appropriate in some social contexts, but not all, not by a long shot, just like quantitative easing is only appropriate in certain contexts. And it's the opposite of empathy, even though executing it requires a limited use of empathy. Empathy means feeling what another person is feeling because your human bonds transcend the difference between you, not strategically tapping into their problematic feelings so you can override them with your own more attractive and pleasant ones.
- chunky1994 14y ago
  >"Perking up" when another person's uncomfortable emotions come to the fore and steering the conversation away teaches them that their problems are their own, and that their full selves are excluded while a partial self (with unpleasantness filtered out) is welcome. I suspect that the author meant this in non-intimate situations, however I agree with your general trend of reasoning. These types of people are comforting to the extreme, I would assume that would (technically) make them satisfying friends and lovers. I'd love to see a clarification of your use of unsatisfying here.

188 points by philipkd 14y ago

"I feel like Neo at the end of The Matrix now." As much as I hate to admit it, I can identify with this. Becoming socially literate for me too has felt and continues to feel almost like a superpower. That "Wow! I can't believe I can do this!" feeling is a bit of a rush. I think what the author is describing is something of a growing trend. It has become relatively easy to make it through to adulthood with very low social intelligence. Society (school and parents, both quite possibly lacking in social intelligence in their own right) reward you for high analytical intelligence, and technologies (videogames for instance) help us function OK without the close groups and social ties which used to be so important in pre-industrial societies. But the further you go into life, the harder it is to proceed, succeed and be happy with a major deficit in social intelligence. Luckily, just as social intelligence is taught implicitly by parents who possess it to their children, so can anyone learn it themselves. It really is a learnable skill! And the shift to valuing it is a good swing of the pendulum back from the excesses of "pure" rationalism (quote marks because a system of rationality that doesn't value geting along with others is not very rational in my books). I think emotional/social literacy is perhaps even more fundamental than our other "traditional" literacies. We've just forgotten the habit as a society of teaching it to our children. Speaking of books, "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman is fantastic for this stuff. Psychotherapy is also very, very useful (if of course it's with a good therapist). Edit: One more thing. I was standing outside a computer room after hours at my university recently, trying to get in. There's this swipe card device that you have to swipe your student ID past to unlock the door, and I've always struggled to get this particular device to work, compared to others around campus. So this night while I'm swiping fruitlessly away a girl and a guy come up and stand there waiting for me. After a couple of seconds the girl says "Maybe if you try swiping it in the middle it will help." I do and instantly it works. Problem solved. What really hit me was the way this girl phrased her comment. I've seen her in this same room many times late at night, and she clearly knew exactly what I was doing wrong. She could easily have achieved the exact same result many other ways - "You need to swipe it in the middle" - "Don't you have any idea what you're doing?" "Here, let me do that" "No, that's wrong, you should do this." Instead she phrased it as a gentle suggestion, without explicitly confirming that it was what I needed to do. Phrasing it that way let me choose to take the suggestion without sacrificing my autonomy, gave me an option to turn the suggestion down without face, and even let me take some of the credit for getting it right. All in all, it was a deft response to a situation where someone else may easily have caused offence with inconsiderate phrasing. Not a big deal in its own right, but small moments like that stack up. As a result this girl clearly goes through life much more smoothly than the people described in this article. So while maybe she can't blitz a test or an essay like a more analytically-minded person, I think her "soft" skill is incredibly, incredibly valuable - I think analytically-minded people have much to learn from people like her.

jerf 14y ago
One of my favorite character arcs in all of literature is that of Spock's, from that stereotyped "rationality" through developing his own comfort with human emotions. Even as from the outside, it seems little has changed, the initial Spock and the final Spock are very different people. Kirk's journey is flashier and easier to find in the story, but far more trite and it's been done a hundred times. I don't know of very many parallels to the Spock arc. I grew up with Star Trek but I find I didn't really "get it" until much later in life. I wish the Original Series wasn't so painful to watch because of its superficial flaws, because while I would not presume to say it's the "best" Star Trek, it probably is the most legitimately "literary" at its best.
the_cat_kittles 14y ago
I have had a growing hypothesis that my social intelligence with acquaintances and big groups (as opposed to close friends) is actually very bad. As is probably the case with most of us here, I didn't suspect this because my intelligence in all other arenas is excellent. I think I was further insulated from the problem because I was in small schools through high school, and never really felt socially deficient as a result. In the 8 or so years since then, being thrust into more circumstances where I don't already know everyone, I have really started to notice it. In some ways, (if my hypothesis is true) realizing what the problem is has been a huge relief- I'm no longer mystified about why some people seem to have large social networks, and I have a small one. It's almost like someone finding out they were colorblind, and then realizing that maybe that was the reason they didn't really like some visual art that everyone else seemed to love. But, I'm still unsure how to approach this problem. This article gives me some hope, but not too many specifics. My working relationships are all excellent, however. Its more just the "hanging out" with people my age, and finding social groups. I suck at that. Does someone with similar experiences want to chime in?
- bytefactory 14y ago
  Excellent question, and one I would love an answer to as well! I am very comfortable working with people, and get along great with everyone. I would go as far as to say I'm usually quite an important part of most groups I am a part of, once everybody gets to know me. The thing that frustrates me, however, is how few people I end up "hanging out" with, and really enjoy the company of. I put that down to a sort of "social fatigue" because of my being an introvert. I'd be curious to see if this is a problem anybody else has managed to conquer.

crag 14y ago

I always had trouble figuring out how to behave or what to say in public settings. Trying my best to be the nicest guy in the room, but ending up coming off aloof and arrogant. Until I learned the fine art of chit-chat. I had an old Army buddy who was a master at chit-chat. He was a lawyer, of course. Anyway he'd drag me to parties, take me by the arm and work the room. It was an amazing show. Listening to his conversations and watching his body language I learned how to be non-offensive and how it was ok to talk about nothing important at all. And that was my biggest huddle; learning that most people in social settings don't want to be serious. That that wasn't the point.

wallflower 14y ago

You might also like this Less Wrong essay: "Defecting by accident is lacking the awareness, tact, and skill to realize what the secondary effects of your actions are and act accordingly to win." http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_common_to_analytical/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_com...

wylie 14y ago
Thanks for this link, I liked how it gave specific examples of behavior to correct, all of which I could recognize from personal experience. Particularly this one, when asking questions: Instead of your underlying point coming across as "your idea is unfeasible," it comes across as, "You've brought this good idea to us, and I hope we're smart enough to make it work."
corporalagumbo 14y ago
The interesting thing for me reading this article was, when I got to the section where he discusses comments on his post, I couldn't help but think, "Damn, the internet would be so BORING if everyone was that nice all the time." What would be the fun of an internet where everyone is so positive and generous all the time? Maybe I'm just addicted to intellectual sparring. Who knows.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Intellectual sparring doesn't necessitate being not nice.
  - corporalagumbo 14y ago
    True, but a sharp debate can be quite delicious.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      This isn't a "but". A good debate is characterized by mutual respect. Otherwise, points go unadvanced beyond their initial assertion, because they aren't properly challenged. There is an important reason that the most commonly called-out fallacy is the argumentum ad hominem; its usage undermines the debate itself. It also happens to be the internet's favorite tactic, and it's a huge part of why the internet is not good at getting things done. Honestly, the Internet and the world at large is missing out on many, many possibilities for "intellectual sparring" because they've made it extremely debate-hostile in the name of having fun and "can't you take a joke". People would rather cram things down by force or not at all, because if they open the floor to conversation, their ideas will be lost in the haze of personal accusation. I wasn't able to find a list, but there are a lot of women bloggers who have signed off for good because harassment created a cost in time and energy that outweighed the benefit of contributing to the public debate. Be honest with yourself. Recognize that what you really enjoy is the gamesmanship of one-line zingers. Don't call it a debate until you can tell me what the Ps and Qs are.

jpeterson 14y ago

I've tried stuff like this. The problem is that my brain gives me wrong/negative interpretations of the other person's emotions most of the time, and I leave almost every social interaction feeling like a failure. This naturally feeds back on itself. Anyone else dealt with something similar?

ajays 14y ago
I hear you. I do feel that, like many other skills, this also can be learned and mastered. There have been times when I've been pretty adept at recognizing and responding to signals. But over the past few years, I have lapsed. Just as an example: today, at a talk, I was talking to this woman and we had a pleasant conversation. Then, as the talk is about to start, she says something to the effect of "I'd love to learn more about your work". My response (with a mouthful of pizza)? "Sure!". And then I focused back on the speaker as he was about to start speaking. Much later I realized she wanted to continue the conversation later, and wanted my card or some contact info. But by then she was gone (she left early). So, for me, it's not that I don't pick up signals; I do pick up many, but they have a much lower priority in the brain's CPU and my responses don't incorporate the signals. My brain finally realizes the inputs way after the opportunity has passed.
mtrimpe 14y ago
I never heard it phrased that way but yes, I feel the exact same way. I realize now that I've learned to 'lean into the discomfort,' but I still have those feelings almost all the time...

jakejake 14y ago

At least for myself, I think there's a gray area between being socially awkward and being selfish. And if the selfishness is not intentional then I might even call it self-ignorance. I had the good fortune in my 20's of hanging around an uncle who was amazingly charismatic - the type that lights up the room, as they say. I tried to emulate him for a while and of course it never really worked all that well for me. But I did become more aware of my own habits. Before that I had always thought I was a pretty considerate person. It took some self analysis to realize that I was pretty stingy with compliments and I didn't really take much interest in what other people were doing. I didn't do thoughtful things for people very often. A lot of times I think I still don't do enough but I'm a lot more aware of it now. The sad thing is that it really doesn't take that much. Some people seem to get it earlier than others but it took me into my 20's before I really became aware of how I treated other people.

cyphersanctus 14y ago

When you want to apply these things during a negotiation. http://www.academia.edu/425074/The_Nonverbal_Skills_You_Need_for_Successful_Negotiation http://www.academia.edu/425074/The_Nonverbal_Skills_You_Need...

Futurebot 14y ago

No question about the practical value of any of this, as the power of these abilities has been discussed and dissected many times, but I'd like to make a brief case as to _why_ some find this distasteful, after many years of reading forums like this and talking to people who openly expressed hatred of it (it being non-verbal signals, subtext, etc.) First, there is the issue of merit. It seems like this grants those with good social intelligence an "unfair" advantage, since the skills involved aren't involved in actually creating/fixing/understanding anything concrete; its power comes from its ability to persaude, detect, and signal. Some perceive this sort of skill as seeming fake and superficial. Second, it flies in the face of the idea of radical honesty and transparency, as it deals with situations and ideas having to do with saying one thing (or nothing at all) but meaning another. This feels very dishonest, and ugly. Some would like to live in a world where absolutely everything is completely explicitly stated, and no one gets offended, but uses everything said as a learning experience. This may seem naive (because the ability to think and say things others may find subjectively offensive is great), but the desire persists nonetheless. I'm personally torn on the subject, as both ways have their serious negatives, but it's worth stating here anyway.

PakG1 14y ago
I can appreciate why this comment is so up-voted. It's easy for us to think in terms of black and white, binary, here are the lines, true and false if statements. But on both points, the analysis is still coming from the same mindset/framework of thinking. On the issue of merit, if you can't communicate about the merit, the merit might as well not exist. In a case where someone has merit to solve a problem, but not the social skills to properly communicate, the person is very similar to a computer program that can receive input and provide output. Computers are great at following instructions to the letter, so much that if they do something wrong, it's usually the user's fault. But how often do we realize now that a program was designed ineffectively so that we now blame the application rather than the user (see any industrial design review), and how often do we wish we could implement machine learning capabilities that would allow the application to correctly guess what the user is really trying to do? People have the ability to adapt social interactions to the user (call it better AI) and also provide this dyanmic feedback (call it machine learning). We can rise above the level of dumb computers that receive input, provide output, and then blame the user if the output isn't actually what the user was looking for. On the issue of radical honesty and transparency, and feeling very dishonest and ugly. I really can appreciate this, I can. But in learning to be empathetic to others (especially my mother, whose mind operates in a totally different manner than my own, leading to many arguments with her when I was younger and I'll admit more immature), I realize that for them not taking into considerations someone's feelings is equally ugly. The words I usually hear are "You don't know anything about my problem, stop acting like you do." Basically in such interactions, I'm not helping, even if I'm right. If we want to speak about merit, the true test should not be my level of knowledge, but rather, did I solve the problem? If I can't solve the problem, how much is my merit really worth? That reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/793/ http://xkcd.com/793/

nckbz 14y ago

The importance of learning some sort of social intelligence is so underrated. You see all these front page posts on hacker news "I taught my 5 year old son and daughter how to program in five different languages" like its something that will really better these children's lives. You want a happy successful kid? Teach them the art of being social and having meaningful interactions with other people. I've wasted so much of my life trying to be the best student or programmer I could possibly be. I turned 24 this year and I'm proud of how well I've done and what I've accomplished in my career to date, but without friends to enjoy it with, success is pretty shallow.

wccrawford 14y ago

I appear to be the odd man out, here. I have always felt empathy for others. I've always been able to put myself in their shoes. I went through my "Neo in the Matrix" period long, long ago. Long before the Matrix came out. I was able to manipulate people like it was nothing. One day, I realized how unethical that was. I was toying with other people for my own ends. And so, like a comic book character, I started using my powers for good. When I manipulate people now, it's for their good, not mine. For example, people generally do not take advice, no matter how good it is. But you can manipulate them into it. Like Inception, you have to make it at least partially their idea. You ask them pointed questions that have only 1 answer. Of course, they'll come up with that answer. It's now their idea. Strong-willed people can still resist it. But these are the people that have always been hardest to help, anyhow. If you've tried your best, you can't feel bad for failing to help them. They simply won't let you.

borplk 14y ago

Is that what you really want? To me it's just promoting the manipulation of other people. Because hey, it's a skill so it's ok. Doesn't it bother you? To know that the person you are talking to, is mirroring your emotions, or offering sympathy, to manipulate you into liking them? I very much prefer the Aspergers-like honesty. I would rather hear 9 harsh, blunt, honest criticisms a day and 1 genuine complement than to receive 10 fake, sugar-coated, vague, manipulative signals. Don't think you'll be the only mastermind learning these and no one else will know about it. Keep in mind, if you do it, if you apply these techniques in your day to day interactions so will other people. And think about it for a second, from the perspective of a subject. Do you really want to be the subject to these social tricks and manipulations? This thought truly bothers me. To hear a complement and not knowing if it was true and genuine or I was complemented simply because that person had read "How to influence people and win friends" last week and wanted to try his manipulation techniques on me. Maybe instead of promoting these social skills we need to promote the appreciation of honesty and having some self control over our emotions.

jiggy2011 14y ago
I think you are making the distinction because someone learned it consciously. People who have high social skills likely do this stuff all the time, perhaps without realising it. Of course people will speak negatively about "manipulating people" but the fact is that it's simply part of how the world goes round, in which case it's probably best to be one of the people who is skilled and resolve to use your powers for good. The alternative would be trying to persuade highly sociable people to imitate aspies. You can try and persuade everyone to be honest, but in a world full of honest people being the only liar will bring huge advantages.
graeme 14y ago
Faking this stuff doesn't work well in the long run. How to win friends and influence people says to give people genuine compliments. I've gone through this kind of transportation. Certainly doesn't feel malicious to me. The main result is that people are a lot happier to be around me. Your argument feels analogous to someone worried by the teaching of logic. The students will become too clever and use their skills to outsmart the others. I've seen hustlers use these skills for malice of course. Some get fooled by them, but they're pretty transparent to most people if used insincerely.

TinyBig 14y ago

The book mentioned in the article, "Definitive Book of Body Language" is an excellent resource. However, it is more of an encyclopedia - comprehensive, but lacking in context. I began this journey some years ago and found Navarro's "What Every Body is Saying" a more helpful starting place. Gives a framework to help understand body language, something that may prove helpful if you are starting from square zero.

Buzaga 14y ago

no evidence - no science... asperger can no longer be "a thing" soon, as it seems it will be removed from the next DSM... so these people either have nothing or are mild autistic or something. it also appears that 20% of ppl 'diagnosed' with this 'grow out of it' "it is nearly impossible to diagnose accurately, indeed statistics show that about 20% of those given the diagnosis later "grow out of it" and show no symptoms as adults, which admits the possibility that they were misdiagnosed in the first place. Also there have been many reports of opportunistic diagnosis of this syndrome in people who were simply different than their peers." http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html

skat_et_dieu 14y ago

I really enjoyed reading this article. It was almost as if I was reading about myself!! Naturally I am very introverted. I also love sitting back and studying social interactions that are happening around me. I have a lot of friends who see me as an unemotional robot. For example, a good friend from high school died in a motorcycle accident a few months ago. I was very calm showing very little worry or stress about it when I found out. My friends who were there were kind of shocked by how calm and worry free I was about it. To me, logically there was nothing I could do to bring him back so why worry about it? At the funeral there was some crying and mourning for him but that was it. But even though I don't show a lot of emotions I do have a way to look into people's eyes as we have a conversation and I am able to meet them emotionally. I start to create rapport by talking at the level and speed as them. Make sure they feel listened when they talk by giving back feedback. It really works very nicely. I'm a programmer with not much care to show emotions but meeting people emotionally is one of the most powerful things you can do in your social life.

dkarl 14y ago

When I notice a conversation veering into an unpleasant territory, I perk up, do the empathy-thing, and I naturally bring it back to something more pleasant. I'm not comfortable with this as a general strategy stemming from a universal mantra. Learning this as an adult is impressive and probably exceptional, but it's a phenomenon we're all familiar with. We all know people who behave like this reflexively and have done so their entire adult lives. It can be pleasant to hang out with people like that in a heterogeneous group where not everyone is comfortable with everyone else, but they make damned unsatisfying friends and lovers. Policing comfort zones is a sure-fire intimacy killer, and it isn't exactly a triumph of empathy to avoid uncomfortable topics of conversation, even if it requires prodigious skill at empathy. Children of troubled and violent households, such as Bill Clinton, are the poster children for glib empathy that is a mile wide and an inch deep. (No political aspersions meant, by the way; I liked him as a politician and a president.) I would argue that in this case we are seeing a misguided (and probably temporary) "zeal of the convert", and by convert I mean someone who has discovered the practical value of this Clintonesque "emotional easing." Emotional easing is much like quantitative easing: it shifts unpleasantness out of the current context. It's a valuable tool, but it can't be applied universally. I'm not comfortable calling it empathy, either. "Perking up" when another person's uncomfortable emotions come to the fore and steering the conversation away teaches them that their problems are their own, and that their full selves are excluded while a partial self (with unpleasantness filtered out) is welcome. That's appropriate in some social contexts, but not all, not by a long shot, just like quantitative easing is only appropriate in certain contexts. And it's the opposite of empathy, even though executing it requires a limited use of empathy. Empathy means feeling what another person is feeling because your human bonds transcend the difference between you, not strategically tapping into their problematic feelings so you can override them with your own more attractive and pleasant ones.

chunky1994 14y ago
>"Perking up" when another person's uncomfortable emotions come to the fore and steering the conversation away teaches them that their problems are their own, and that their full selves are excluded while a partial self (with unpleasantness filtered out) is welcome. I suspect that the author meant this in non-intimate situations, however I agree with your general trend of reasoning. These types of people are comforting to the extreme, I would assume that would (technically) make them satisfying friends and lovers. I'd love to see a clarification of your use of unsatisfying here.