How Studying Body Language Changed the Way I Socialize

http://dearcharlottebook.com/2012/09/body-language.html

by philipkd • 14 years ago

188 94 14 years ago

wallflower• 14 years 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_com...

wylie• 14 years 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."

corporalagumbo9• 14 years 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.

saraid2162• 14 years ago

Intellectual sparring doesn't necessitate being not nice.

nostrademons3• 14 years ago

I felt the same way.

I think I'd rather try to develop an intuitive feel for when to defect and when not to defect, so you can make these snap judgments on the fly and have them not work out too badly for you.

I also found his example pretty interesting. There have definitely been times that I have called out my boss, or my PM, or an executive in a meeting or e-mail thread. And in most places, that would be career suicide. But the thing is - the alternative, in most cases, is to let a wrong decision go through. Usually the meeting is where the decision gets made; if you wait until afterwards to bring up your concerns, then time has to be spent getting everyone back on the same page, which is more embarrassing and costs a lot more for the company. When your code affects a billion people and makes billions of dollars in revenue, every single person needs to be able to blow the whistle, regardless of hurt feelings, and say "This is dumb; let's not do it." I tell Nooglers I mentor that the most valuable thing they can do for the company is to challenge obviously-wrong product decisions and not let them go through.

I try to make it up by praising things I actually do like, honestly. But I've found it's a much better strategy to be prickly on some things and effusively praising on others than to be uniformly inoffensive.

vijayr• 14 years ago

It is possible to spar, disagree with, criticize, part ways etc amicably and all the while being nice. I've seen people like that, it is not an easy skill to learn though

corporalagumbo9• 14 years 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• 14 years 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_kittles4• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

corporalagumbo9• 14 years ago

Not knowing much about your situation, here are some general tips that may or may not be useful. Also, recommending again Daniel Goleman's work for developing basic social literacy.

1) Be happy about the size of your social circle. Some people think they have to run out and make lots of friends as quickly as possible. I think it's better to hang out with the people you know and work on just having a good attitude. More friends (if that's really what you want) will happen of their own accord.

2) Relatedly, let things evolve naturally. It's better to be relatively hands-off, go with the flow and resist the temptation to manufcature new relationships/friendships/hobbies/social interactions.

3) Do things you like, regardless of where they take you socially. Some people think you can't go to a movie without friends. I think the opposite - you should be doing stuff you enjoy, without worrying too much about whether there are people doing it with you.

4) Then, look for opportunities to invite people to do stuff with you. If it's stuff you like doing anyway, you'll be more enjoyable to hang out with.

5) Be open to anything. People offer you chances to go do new things - dinner at their place, a concert, paintball - all the time. Take up the opportunities. If you're agreeable, eager, and ready to learn, people will love having you around.

6) Be faithful. Some people seem to have a bad habit of ditching old friends when new, cooler ones seem to be available - like now they have a chance to hang out with the cool kids, so they're going to get rid of those embarrassing old weirdos they were making do with for a while. Don't do this! It won't make you happy, it'll just make you a fake asshole. Staying true to your old friends, regardless of their quirks, is key to staying true to yourself, and very important if you are doing better socially and making friends. Remember your roots.

7) Say nice things. Just make an effort to say nice things, often. Compliment people on their clothes, taste in music, abilites, work they've done, house, whatever. You might think you're very complimentary but I think it can be surprising (if you're anything like me) how much people appreciate hearing you voice your approval aloud. People love it.

8) Use agreeable words like "yes," "sure," "okay," "awesome," and so on. Say "great" instead of "good." Say "great!!" instead of just "great." Just try consciously to change your language to use more positives. At first it might feel a bit weird but it makes a big difference, and it becomes more natural. You will just become a more positive person. (Did you notice that I tried to give as much of this advice in positives rather than negatives?)

9) Be yourself. Do you want to hang out with people right now or just be on your own? Do you what you want to do. Pay attention to your own feelings, and try and communicate what you are feeling clearly - while being respectful and considerate of course. Pay attention to your inner state.

10) Real importantly, it's okay if you don't click with everyone. Maybe what you're looking for is just two or three really close friends. If so, those are going to be people you can really, really relate to. Feeling comfortable with others starts with honesty. It's not about trying to act cool or super friendly, it's about being yourself around people you trust and who trust you. It's not always easy to find people who fit with you (and for whom you fit likewise) but it's worth it. The main thing is not to worry, with these things it can feel like nothing is changing and nothing will ever changes for aaaaaaages, then suddenly, overnight, it all just happens. It usually finally happens, I think, when you relax and forget to worry about it.

Hope that helps. Feel free to correct me if my advice doesn't map to your specifics. Otherwise, good luck : )

personlurking4• 14 years ago

"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'd like to branch off from this comment a bit. What happens when your intelligence, like wealth (a comparison I recently started making), creates a gap between yourself and others? What happens when you want to talk about really interesting things ('go to a fancy restaurant') but others basically clam up ('can't afford it')?

Over the last decade and a half, my personal 'wealth' has been created from finding and maintaining varying interests. Most people I talk to don't seem to have any. They work/play, spend/earn, watch tv, listen to music and go out with friends to bars/clubs. And when you ask them about their interests, they rattle off the list I just made. I suppose it has to do with the idea that education is something you're forced to deal with and 'luckily' it's over after college.

Finding those (IRL) who have interests or who believe in lifelong learning is like finding a needle in a haystack.

psweber3• 14 years ago

Comments like this make Hacker News pretty great.

Evbn• 14 years ago

Of course if the guy had said the same thing, he would be a passive aggressive jerk, saying "maybe" when he who darn well what the problem was. But the girl had long flowing social skills, and two large, soft skills, and these that made her delivery more pleasant...

lilsunnybee• 14 years ago

Gross. Sexist much?

There are different social standards for men and women having almost nothing to do with appearance. While a man might appear to be passive aggressive in a negative way if his advice isn't assertive enough, a woman will look like a pushy bitch if she's too assertive. It cuts both ways.

corporalagumbo9• 14 years ago

Uhh... I have no idea why you feel the need to be so hostile about this. Also, I don't agree with you. Generally girls are sharper socially than guys, but I have met plenty of guys with great social skills, as well as girls with limited skills, and many other variations.

And if you're suggesting that I automatically approve of the social behaviour of attractive girls, then I am afraid I beg to differ.

creamyhorror• 14 years ago

Here's a great site anyone considering the state of their friendships and social life should check out:

http://www.succeedsocially.com

The sort of topics it covers:

"How To Think Of Things To Say When Making Conversation"

"When People Don't Seem Interested In Starting Friendships With You"

"When You Feel Like Your Social Circle Is Indifferent To You"

"Social Mistakes Intellectual People Can Make"

"Reasons Someone May See You As Weird"

Just start clicking around randomly and you'll probably find an article that draws your attention. Hope it helps any of you folks out there who see that they may be doing something wrong but can't figure out what it is.

nessus42• 14 years ago

>After a couple of seconds the girl says "Maybe if you try swiping it in the middle it will help."

Personally, I'd find that way of expressing it slightly annoying, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps because it's worded as a suggestion without saying why this suggestion is worth considering. Maybe if I tried swiping it while singing Yankee Doodle Dandy, it would also help?

The way that I would word this sort of suggestion is, "I've noticed that I have better luck when I swipe it in the middle." That's just a helpful fact, devoid of prescription, while also expressing to some degree that I have been similarly frustrated by the device in the past.

Then again, I probably have Asperger's too, so what do I know?

nostrademons3• 14 years ago

My gut reaction to her way of expressing it was also negative, although I'd give her the benefit of the doubt in person because she's just trying to help.

I think it's because it's condescending. In two ways - on one hand, it's pointing out something that's obvious in hindsight. On the other, it's blatantly trying to sugarcoat that it's obvious, as if you can't handle the fact that you don't know everything.

I would've just said "Try the middle" or "Right down the center". Simple and basically devoid of emotion.

OTOH, I think that one thing this example highlights is: audience matters. I find that I talk one way with computer types, another way with my liberal-arts college friends, and a third way with my Harry Potter fandom friends. And occasionally I mix it up, and then my college friends think I'm a rude asshole, or Hacker News thinks I'm overly circuitous and can't get to the point. You can't have a conversation devoid of context; the fact that this example happens outside a computer room is pretty relevant.

kijin5• 14 years ago

> It really is a learnable skill! ... We've just forgotten the habit as a society of teaching it to our children.

I think that's a hasty generalization.

Some people are merely introverted, and can improve their social intelligence through everyday practice. Others, however, actually have a neurological condition (i.e. Asperger's Syndrome, which the article mentions). At least for some subset of them, "social intelligence" is little more than analytic intelligence applied to something that has a very low signal-to-noise ratio. You can discern the signal from time to time if you concentrate hard enough, and you can put an abstraction layer on top of all the analytic processing so that the result looks somewhat like "social intelligence". But at bottom, it's always like trying to do floating-point calculations on a processor that was only designed for integer calculations. It's inefficient by many orders of magnitude, because you have to fake every step.

Of course, there isn't a clear line between an introverted neurotypical and an Aspie. But just because the transition is gradual doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist.

It makes me sad whenever an article like this uses the word "Asperger's" to describe typical introverted programmers. (This is a complaint about the article, not the parent comment.) It also makes me sad to read comments that make excessively broad generalizations about how people (should) acquire social intelligence. (This is a complaint about the parent comment.) Overgeneral advice, even if well-intentioned, could give neurotypicals the misleading idea that Aspies behave like they do because of their own fault (lack of effort).

Nowadays, we often throw around psychiatric terms to describe behavior that falls within the normal range. "I'm feeling ADHD today." "He's a bit of an Aspie." "She acts as if she has bipolar disorder when she's drunk." etc. Although some of these are meant to be comical and we all have some use for metaphors and exaggerations, we should be careful not to make serious generalizations based on such informal usage of terms.

erichocean• 14 years ago

I do find it interesting that we ask Aspies to become more empathetic, but we don't ask neurotipicals to become a little less hung up on social niceties.

Obviously, neurotypicals get the benefit of the doubt for "how people should be", since there are so many more of them. But we don't ask gays to be straight, despite not being "normal", numerically, so why should we ask Aspies to be more empathetic? Why assume an Aspie is broken, by default? Where's the proof that lack of empathy is a problem for anything other than working with neurotypicals?

I can't help but wonder that the future might not actually belong to neurotypicals. That, perhaps, the Aspie mutation might be better adapted to a world that is becoming more and more computerized and less and less hospitable to neurotypicals.

For example, consider Zynga. How many normals are completely wasting their lives and earnings on an objectively stupid social game because their normal, empathetic minds have been hacked to "like" and see value in it? We all can see that it's sad, and yet we know there's virtually nothing that can be done for them, short of banning those games. They simply cannot adapt, where Aspies can (and have).

Neurotypicals seem to think Aspies have "anti-social" lives, but those I've met seem pretty happy. And at least from my perspective, are really straightforward to get along with, if you can understand their behavior and not take offense and what would normally be a slight in neurotypical-land.

Perhaps trying to turn Aspies into neurotypicals is really only beneficial today because most of the world is normal, so Aspies, to some degree, need to work with neurotypicals if they are to achieve anything.

But how long will that be true? When will a critical mass of Aspies exist, or the world become hospitable to them despite not having to pretend to be neurotypicals?

And what then? Do we continue to try and "make the gays straight", so to speak? Or do we realize that an Aspie is just as valid a way to live as anything else, and not a disability to be overcome?

It's strange to see evolution happen right in front of us. I don't have any answers, but these are the thoughts that have occurred to me for some time now, and I thought I'd share.

rcthompson2• 14 years ago

> At least for some subset of them, "social intelligence" is little more than analytic intelligence applied to something that has a very low signal-to-noise ratio.

Yep, that's exactly what it feels like to me. I recently got diagnosed with Asperger's. I find it impossible to do "social intelligence" in real time during a conversation.

The frustrating part is that the signal is obviously there, since other people pick up on it just fine.

gadders3• 14 years ago

One point I would like to make: being an introvert doesn't mean you can't interact in a group situation (or have low social intelligence), it's just not your preferred situation.

I'd rather be reading a book than socialising with colleagues after work, but I do it and am far from a wallflower.

I also had an instructor on a course (on brainstorming) and he was very energetic, dynamic and dominated the room (in a good way). I chatted to him after the course and got on the subject of Myers-Briggs, and he said he was actually an introvert. He had just learnt (through training as an actor amongst other things) to be an extrovert when the situation required it.

notlisted• 14 years ago

What is considered "social" is also a cultural issue. People often talk about Steve Jobs being an asshole. I suspect he too didn't ascribe to the prevailing no-fault social model in de USA.

In terms of social interaction, the USA is the exception, not the norm. Many other cultures are more direct, critical, and less respectful of other's opinions if they "know better". For Aspies it would be easier to live elsewhere.

Americans somehow are no longer used to being told that they're wrong. They demand respect for their opinions (or worse: beliefs) which they won't get elsewhere unless based in facts/reason.

Have you ever worked with Europeans, especially people from The Netherlands or Russia?

Free advice is meted out generously and without excuses. According to them, Americans are extremely hung up on certain "niceties" that Dutchies (and much of Europe) consider "fake" or "politically correct". In reverse, Americans generally consider the French (and Dutch, and Russians, etc.) "rude".

I'm not necessarily saying the directness/truth is better, but it saves a bunch of time/bull as pointed out elsewhere. It requires some getting used to for the non-initiated... but once they do, they like it. My clients pay me for it.

I love working with 'Aspies', but I won't take them into a client meeting anymore. :-)

(chuckle: Customer is very happy with a new feature and remarks "oh wow, that must have taken a long time to implement". I was happy he said so, because we were close to going over budget and I wanted to send him another invoice. Aspie programmer, rightfully proud of his work: "oh no, not at all, perhaps 15 minutes!")

five18pm• 14 years ago

Steven Pinker's book 'The Stuff of Thought' deals with this sort of phrasing. And he explains it quite better than what I can. So here is the relevant excerpt from the book:

Why don't people just say what they mean? The reason is that conversational partners are not modems downloading information into each other's brains. People are very, very touchy about their relationships. Whenever you speak to someone, you are presuming the two of you have a certain degree of familiarity--which your words might alter. So every sentence has to do two things at once: convey a message and continue to negotiate that relationship.

The clearest example is ordinary politeness. When you are at a dinner party and want the salt, you don't blurt out, "Gimme the salt." Rather, you use what linguists call a whimperative, as in "Do you think you could pass the salt?" or "If you could pass the salt, that would be awesome."

Taken literally, these sentences are inane. The second is an overstatement, and the answer to the first is obvious. Fortunately, the hearer assumes that the speaker is rational and listens between the lines. Yes, your point is to request the salt, but you're doing it in such a way that first takes care to establish what linguists call "felicity conditions," or the prerequisites to making a sensible request. The underlying rationale is that the hearer not be given a command but simply be asked or advised about one of the necessary conditions for passing the salt. Your goal is to have your need satisfied without treating the listener as a flunky who can be bossed around at will.[1]

Analytically minded people would do well to pick up this book and try to understand the science behind our interactions.

[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1659772,00....

gadders3• 14 years ago

The girl's example reminds me a bit of "blowing the dust out of the connector" by Raymond Chen:

Here's the trick: Don't ask "Are you sure it's plugged in correctly?"

If you do this, they will get all insulted and say indignantly, "Of course it is! Do I look like an idiot?" without actually checking.

Instead, say "Okay, sometimes the connection gets a little dusty and the connection gets weak. Could you unplug the connector, blow into it to get the dust out, then plug it back in?"

They will then crawl under the desk, find that they forgot to plug it in (or plugged it into the wrong port), blow out the dust, plug it in, and reply, "Um, yeah, that fixed it, thanks."

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/03/83244...

jpeterson• 14 years 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• 14 years 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• 14 years 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• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

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

Futurebot• 14 years 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.

PakG12• 14 years 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/

PeterBB• 14 years ago

I definitely sympathize with this. I used to be (and to some extent still am) the sort of person who would get in a lot of social trouble for being too blunt about things, or for focusing on results rather than social niceties. But I’ve come to realize that in order to really value merit and honesty, good communication skills are a prerequisite. I’m going to focus on the second issue, since I think the merit issue is clearer. (There’s a reason we value languages other than assembly, and people like Bill Nye.)

If you want to be honest, you must first learn communication skills. It is impossible to communicate honestly if you can’t communicate.

Languages do not inherently contain meaning. The only reason we are able to speak and understand each other in English is because there is a social consensus that certain words and phrases mean certain things. If you try to speak to someone who isn’t part of that social consensus (because they speak only a different language, say), your words are meaningless.

Therefore, if you say some words to people, and every time they invariably interpret your words as meaning, “This person is socially aggressive and is disagreeing with me as a power play”, then that is what those words mean. It is almost entirely irrelevant that you intended them to mean, “It is my objective analysis that your plan is bad.”

Since you probably don’t believe, “I want to make a power play on this person”, you are accidentally being dishonest by stating your opinion the way you did. If you want to communicate, “I think your plan is a bad one, and that we ought to try something different”, then you must put in the effort to actually learn how to communicate that.

To take a concrete example, say a friend were to invite you to a movie. The movie is quite bad, and you have a variety of criticisms of it. At the end of the night, your friend asks, “So what did you think?” If you wish to communicate, “I thought it was a bad movie”, you cannot scowl and say, “Typical hollywood tripe.” That would accidentally be dishonest, because you would be communicating, “I’m in a bad mood, and quite possibly angry at you. Also, I’m completely uninterested in your opinion.” Instead, you might try something like smiling and saying, “Oh, it was exactly as terrible as I was expecting. I’m already composing my facebook take-down in my head. What did you think?” This more honestly communicates, “I found the movie lacking, but I’m in a good mood and glad we spent time together.” (Alternatively, if you do happen to be in a bad mood, it’s probably not because of the movie. So you might look thoughtful and say, “Well, I thought it was pretty mediocre, but I’ve been in a bad mood recently anyway, because of X, so I might just be being unfair.”)

nckbz• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

crag• 14 years 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.

borplk2• 14 years 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.

jiggy20112• 14 years 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.

graeme4• 14 years 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.

gadders3• 14 years ago

I think it's kind of like how people say having a good product is the best marketing.

Being a nice guy (or girl!) is the same idea made personal.

ap3rson• 14 years ago

I don't think it's fair to say that all of the skills are aimed at manipulation through means of social interaction.

There's nothing particularly wrong with empathy, it's all about connecting with people and building a better understanding through feeling. Unfortunately numerous self-help book titles often make it seem as if this is a hack, or a manipulation, in its essence though I feel that it's not.

thirdtruck• 14 years ago

Agreed. I find numerous parallels between that and learning to program.

The new hire who shows up at their desk with "Learn Java in 24 Hours" feels like a "manipulator" and "huckster".

The one who makes a deep study of the Gang of Four book looks like a Carnegie or Clinton from the outside.

The one that grew up around computers looks like a "natural". However, they just went through those previous two stages of learning while nobody was looking.

The "natural" uses the same external behavior as the rest, but at such an unconscious level as to evade easy detection by themselves or others.

king_jester• 14 years ago

I think the author was getting at actually focusing on having empathy for others when speaking to them to help understand their emotional state. Having empathy for others is not an attempt to manipulate them.

insickness• 14 years ago

But is someone telling you their exact feelings at that moment really honesty? If everyone were completely honest with each other, the world would be a vastly different place.

Let's say you invite a co-worker out to lunch. He doesn't like you. He could either say, "I don't like you," or "I'm busy."

In your world, he would be straightforward about his feelings and tell you he doesn't like you. This kind of communication injures egos and causes hostility and friction. It makes for an unpleasant work environment.

Instead when he says, "I'm busy," you don't know if he was really busy or he doesn't like you. He may even say, "I'd love to go out to lunch with you, but I'm busy. So sorry. Let's do it another time."

So you ask him again the next day. He's busy again. You ask him again the day after. Still busy. He never asks you out to lunch and never makes an effort with you.

Now what you have here is a truly honest signal. His actions are an honest signal. His words are bullshit. Everyone's words are bullshit. People will lie to themselves under social pressure and act like they are interested. But a person's actions don't lie.

borplk2• 14 years ago

What you are describing is more of a white lie because you were put into the situation.

You might say I'm busy because telling that person you don't like them has no benefit for either of you, you're gonna have to work with each other and yes that would make things more unpleasant than it had to be.

That I think is very different from actively making an effort to manipulate others for your own gain. It is almost suggesting that you give up your own taste and personality so that you can match with as many people as possible.

This is very strongly evident in the western culture. I can sense it because I'm from a different place where there is no concept of "popularity" or "coolness" unlike what you constantly see in the west through movies and media.

danneu• 14 years ago

I don't think "fake niceness", empty compliments, and subterfuge are tenets of empathy or what the author was trying to express.

The author provides this example interaction:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: They're okay.

Where you might have implied that the author is saying it should've happened like this:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: Yeah, they rule!

I think the author and the case for empathy were thinking along the lines of something more like this:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: Have you ever seen them live? (Begin convo fork into live shows
                you've both seen. Share experiences.)

That's how you build value and connect with people.

"They're okay" is not honesty. There's no virtue in arbitrary judgement that does nothing but punish people for revealing their joys to you. It just squanders the opportunity where a connection could've been made.

I think empathetic social skills very much encompass the appreciation of honesty, and connecting with the emotional state of others does require self-control over your own state.

TinyBig• 14 years 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• 14 years 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

skat_et_dieu• 14 years 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.

dkarl3• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

dkarl3• 14 years ago

People who like to dodge awkward conversations, and who are skilled at it, will dodge the awkward conversations you really want to have with them. In the case of romantic relationships, they'll dodge the conversations you desperately NEED to have with them, and you'll get stuck in a hopeless rut where they repeatedly make you feel like a problem is being addressed when it really isn't. You might not blame them for it right away, but believe me, the results are unsatisfying.

On a not entirely unrelated note, people will also use empathy to respond to requests for things. You can spend years with someone before you learn that expressing empathy is their way of avoiding saying "no." (You'll figure this out much faster if it's a working relationship instead of a romantic one.)

Empathy can be a powerful, powerful force, and it can act on either party.

psweber3• 14 years ago

> I would argue that in this case we are seeing a misguided (and probably temporary) "zeal of the convert"

While many of your points are valid, I don’t see the author as a misguided person who has made a temporary, superficial discovery about interpersonal relationships. Having gone through a lot of this myself, I see the author as taking a huge first step towards the growth of his emotional intelligence. He implies that he has a history of speaking his mind (with a lack of tact). Now he is learning to emphathize and have pleasant relationships. The next step is learning to balance those things. Speak your mind when doing so is important, and consider the impact of your words while doing so. Sometimes telling someone a hard truth is the true kindness. As the author points out, the way you deliver those messages determines whether they are helpful or just hurtful.

dkarl3• 14 years ago

Learning the technique for yourself is one thing. Applying it universally is another, and applying it to other people is yet another. He shouldn't assume that if a conversation takes a negative twist that somebody has screwed up and the empathetic thing to do is to put it back on a positive track. For example, I was waiting to cross the street the other day, and a woman came running past me and ran across the street against the light so she could catch a bus that was about to pull away. A black kid standing next to me said, "If I did that, that cop over there would have pulled over to get me." It was an unpleasant and awkward thing for me to contemplate, and probably not the right thing to say if the kid wanted to put me at ease or be the most charming possible company, but all he wanted was a little microdose of empathy from a stranger. (In retrospect, I'm impressed he was optimistic enough to expect it. I hope I delivered.) Trying to put that conversation back on a pleasant track would not have showed much empathy; in fact, it probably would have made him feel more alone instead of less alone.

I don't mean to send a harsh personal judgment about the author, by the way, only his message. The zeal of the convert is something that happens naturally to everyone when they discover something that opens up new possibilities for them, whether it's a social technique or a programming language.

How Studying Body Language Changed the Way I Socialize

Related Stories