I started paying attention to people and discovered a lot of this on my own over the course of three years. At some point i realized that whenever i talked to someone their eyes would glaze over and their face would go stony. Then theyd talk to someone else and their eyes would become focused and their face alive and animated. Laughter. I figured out this was because they didnt care about what i was saying or about my opinions. So i tried various things and looked at their eyes. Sometimes their eyes would become alive again and i could tell they cared. Slowly you learn what people want to hear. And its so true about smiling and body language, people feel uncomfortable if you dont project wellbeing. What you need to understand is that there is no logic in any of it. Humans are machines and the algorithms that they employ for attention and emotion are surprisngly uniform and very unintuitive for autists like me and you. Dont worry about the logic of whats hapenning, just think of what their algorithm is doing. Its verry dificult because you cant verify what people are thinking, you cant debug it and you cant start over -- you have to guess a lot. Overall people want to see big smiles and confident body posture. If you are slouched over people dont like it. If you stand up straight you will be amazed at how differently you are percieved. But it all has to be genuine. And youre trying to manipulate and understand people in a clinical way you will fail. All you need is a genuine desire to bond with people and the patience to pay attention to what seems to work and what doesnt.
I think the article severely downplays the importance of attractiveness. If the other party finds you attractive, the bar is lowered to the point of you simply being normal/average in terms of intelligence, wit, and whatever else you want to include in your definition of what makes a person "interesting". You basically need to be a vapid idiot to give anyone a bad impression as an attractive person.
It's a huge factor. I've started putting some of my big programmer bucks into improving my appearance before I hit 30, starting with braces (family couldn't afford them as a kid), eyelid surgery to fix some mild ptosis, and a nose job. I've also started using sunscreen and moisturizer on my face on a regular basis.
The past few years have made me realize that your appearance only becomes more important as you age and progress in a white-collar career -- not less, as I was led to believe as a child. This is especially disheartening to realize while working in CA/NYC tech, which have always been billed as one of the most meritocratic and progressive sectors. Getting into shape only takes you so far. I consider myself average now, but I want to be hot.
Please stop, you are wrong. Im attractive and people hate me. Have you ever considered whats its like to be attractive? People are instantly jealous of you and hate you. And they make sure to lay judgement into you -- if you arent whip smart they will tear you down just like anyone else. I know ugly, average looking and good looking people who all do very well with people and in life. It comes down to your intelligence, not how you look. Please dont mutilate your face like a south korean teenager. Just like them you will find thay its not worth it.
Question for you and xor1. Are you talking about going from a 1 to a 5, from a 5 to an 8 or from an 8 to a 10?
My intuition is that at the deformed end of the spectrum, any improvement is going to be 99% positive and that it starts to become more of a mixed blessing as you approach perfection.
>Please stop, you are wrong. Im attractive and people hate me. Have you ever considered whats its like to be attractive? People are instantly jealous of you and hate you. And they make sure to lay judgement into you -- if you arent whip smart they will tear you down just like anyone else.
Sorry, but I've never seen anything like this happen after high school. Attractiveness is respected, especially if you can keep or improve it as you begin to age.
>Please dont mutilate your face like a south korean teenager.
If you're referring to the eyelid surgery, it's not THAT kind of eyelid surgery.
Idk, although I kind of get the gist of what you are saying, I've met plenty of unattractive people who are pleasant to be with.
And for whatever reasons, I'm more attracted to talking to these (unattractive) people than some Brad Pitt look-a-likes. They tend to make me feel more at ease. Different strokes for different people I guess.
>And for whatever reasons, I'm more attracted to talking to these (unattractive) people than some Brad Pitt look-a-likes. They tend to make me feel more at ease.
I'm actually really interested in why you feel this way, if you could go into more detail.
- If it's a very attractive girl I am talking to/hitting on, I am generally more self conscious about my appearance, making it harder to relax during the conversation. I feel that any misstep in my talking will immediately make them disinterested in me.
- There's the stereotype that attractive people are boring/dumb/narcissistic since they can use their attractiveness as a crutch. I am definitely guilty of passing this judgement on people.
>- If it's a very attractive girl I am talking to/hitting on, I am generally more self conscious about my appearance, making it harder to relax during the conversation. I feel that any misstep in my talking will immediately make them disinterested in me.
I might be coming at this from a different angle but I think it comes down to competition. Well, I don't have any scientific proofs per se (bleh) but I think we are generally hard-coded from our DNA to try/want to be the most attractive. It's only when you are well aware it's not a threat, you'd be able to lower your guard down.
Now, if we are talking about opposite sex, then that's a whole another type of conversation.
I am going to assume that you don't consider yourself to be exceptionally attractive. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, with that assumption, if you were able to wake up tomorrow morning and be on par with a "Brad Pitt" lookalike, how do you think that your reaction to interacting with them would change? What about with the other group of people that you currently prefer to engage with? After thinking about that, would you still prefer that things remain as they are?
>Now, if we are talking about opposite sex, then that's a whole another type of conversation.
This matters too, of course, unless you don't plan to interact with them at all in a professional environment :)
He is for real, no doubt. Also he is correct. I have seen this depressingly often. Anecdote from the trenches: A dev team of about 15. They are working an an algorithm that did some language-type matching. One guy was regarded as the expert on the subject, came up with the algorithm, wrote a paper on it that was the basis of his Masters thesis, and essentially the whole company bowed down in front of him. When I joined I quickly learned that he looked good, had a smooth talk, and was far from a good developer. His work was chaotic and his software was ill behaved, stupidly resource hungry, and based on a flawed hypothesis (it provably didn't work well, and made mistakes). There were two issues with this. Firstly, it cost us a fortune in providing the resource to keep his software running and available, and secondly it had a real negative impact on people's lives. The other devs' on the team were aware of this, and many had solid ideas to improve. I worked with some devs after hours to built a solr-based alternative that took a week to build and test (as opposed to the countless man-years that went into this guys algorithm), and I organised a presentation to the CEO (I was senior exec there, and was on the highest level management team). The presentation was a success, and by all metrics what we cobbled together was faster, cheaper, and most importantly, better. We were congratulated on our success, but after a few days the CEO declined to implement the change. I know that the person in question spent a lot of time lobbying against us during this period. The next move we made was to find a US based company that made software that did the exact same thing, had a solid US Government track record (which was important to our client base - mostly US banks) and was ridiculously cheap. To compare, they did what we did on a laptop. We had 4 racks in a colo to do the same thing. Annual licensing cost was a months dev wage. That plan was also deep-sixed.
I personally left shortly after that, but I spent a lot of time wondering why two obviously superior solutions to real problems were ignored. The dev in question was charming, handsome, spent a lot of time worrying about his looks and was a smooth political operator.
Look and impressions matter more. This is just one of many stories, and it is the primary driver behind me setting up my own shop years ago. I cannot stand this kind of idiocy.
I have substance. You're completely delusional if you think that being good-looking will ever be anything other than a benefit. An extremely significant one at that.
Given that the whole point of the post you're responding to seems to be precisely that cosmetics do in fact take you quite far, and substance isn't, in his experience, as important as he was led to believe... I rather doubt simply asserting that looks don't matter is going to change his opinion.
Attractive is not physical appearance or good looks. Attractive is a culmination of all the factors that can be observed or known that will give a positive impression.
It is usually much more important to carry yourself as attractive than to be beautiful. Confidence, honesty, friendliness, integrity, etc all can be assumed by a picture of a beautiful person, but in practice it's body language that portrays these qualities better. In addition, things like humor and other tips in the article can control someone's impression much more than looks.
Make yourself hot if you want. But if you're still insecure or unhappy inside, it's going to come off as unattractive. (Unless you then act more alpha as a defense mechanism to this... Behavior is complicated)
Oh internet and self-help gurus. Why do you have to be the "best" at everything and get the most of out stuff.
It's like those things they teach you that before giving a bad review first start with the good points then add a "but". Sound great in theory but just absurd when you realize someone is doing it to you on purpose.
You know you can do all this and create great rapport and win the title for best conversationalist but if this is not your nature you still won't have fun nor create that connection which you can have by just being you, with all your flaws, moles and warts. If you're not a total asshole, people like you anyway.
Just imagine if your friends were like this. Trying to be the best conversationalist they can be with you instead of being the usual silly dickheads they generally are..
>Oh internet and self-help gurus. Why do you have to be the "best" at everything and get the most of out stuff.
The article's content is ok. But what called my attention was that every single paragraph links to a source, author or better: an amazon book page. Its like the index page of a book on the subject!
Yes! My favorite tactic to get people talking about themselves comes from Paul Ford:
Just ask the other person what they do, and right after they tell you, say: “Wow. That sounds hard.”
Because nearly everyone in the world believes their job to be difficult. I once went to a party and met a very beautiful woman whose job was to help celebrities wear Harry Winston jewelry. I could tell that she was disappointed to be introduced to this rumpled giant in an off-brand shirt, but when I told her that her job sounded difficult to me she brightened and spoke for 30 straight minutes about sapphires and Jessica Simpson. She kept touching me as she talked. I forgave her for that. I didn’t reveal a single detail about myself, including my name. Eventually someone pulled me back into the party. The celebrity jewelry coordinator smiled and grabbed my hand and said, “I like you!” She seemed so relieved to have unburdened herself. I counted it as a great accomplishment. Maybe a hundred times since I’ve said, “wow, that sounds hard” to a stranger, always to great effect. I stay home with my kids and have no life left to me, so take this party trick, my gift to you.
What a lovely little piece with some delightful quotes. Thank you for sharing.
I’ve found that people will fear your enthusiasm and warmth, and wait to hear the price. Which is fair. We’ve all been drawn into someone’s love only to find out that we couldn’t afford it.
Well I wasn't there of course, but all things being equal, if a woman at a party touches you whilst talking, is animated in her discussion, and goes to the trouble of saying out loud that she likes you, well usually that's a good sign that a person is "interested".
Maybe you're in a relationship, maybe you weren't interested anyway but she might have wanted to get your phone number.
So in return for being "liked" by that woman, the listener had to pretend to be interested in her talk entirely about herself for half an hour? Where she wasn't interested enough to even ask the listeners name?
Sounds like a way to raise her self-esteem at the expense of yours.
Yes, if you're insincere, it's patronizing. So it requires empathy and curiosity.
If done right, it's just like the old Dale Carnegie quote:
You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.
I think it depends more on how cynical and/or confident the person you are talking to is. A cynical person will assume you are insincere even if you aren't. An unconfident person will think you're just being polite.
It really, honestly doesn't. A good conversationalist knows how to draw trust from their partner. One of the great benefits of learning how to listen and respond with genuine interest is that you can pierce the walls people put up. There is no one 'key'; it only comes with practice.
Personally, I have never met an adult[1] in my life who can start a sentence with "Wow" and come off as convincing. "Wow" just sets off my bull shit detector (rightly or not).
Albeit that doesn't prove you are wrong. It could also mean I haven't ever met a "good conversationalist" who has used that word with me.
Seeing as I have read "How to Win Friend's An Influence People" (twice) and 90% of the people I know do the exact opposite of what the book suggests, it could indeed be I have never met those people.
It's not that there aren't things they can say that would be convincing, just the specific quote the OP used -- "Wow. That sounds hard” -- would not only be not effective on me, it would be detrimental.
[1] I have to specify adult because I have met children who use it convincingly.
When considering soft things like conversational flow, try not to get too focused on the use of any one particular word. Look to the intent behind the phrase. "Wow, that sounds hard" is fundamentally 1) an expression of genuine acknowledgement, and 2) an opening to learn more about what is clearly important to the person you're talking to.
The skill is in finding something about your partner that you can say these things honestly about. You do that, and whatever actual words you use to express it don't really matter that much. The emotional intent behind your words will ring clear.
In the original version I heard from him, perhaps on his podcast, he mentioned that he usually uses a stronger exclamation than that but hs a policy of not cursing in whatever publication the written piece appeared in.
You're right, in that there are some people that are minefields. But I do think most people who aren't natural conversationalists greatly overestimate their number. Most folks genuinely want to connect, and it only takes the slightest of pushes to break the ice. Extrovert, introvert... It doesn't really matter, in terms of short-length discussion. People are people.
Of course you don't just say that. Recall from OP how mirroring works: you listen, repeat, label/distill. Odds are there is some part of what they said that you'd sincerely be curious to learn more about, that you think you might be able to relate to. (If it was a brief "I'm a ___" response, ask questions about the field to get to that point, etc.) And at some point you spin things positive like "But X part of the job is probably exciting, right?" Which is a segue into what you're passionate about yourself after they answer.
The key is to be genuinely curious and show it in body language. For the first part, approach every conversation as if it was a 100-upvote HN posting "Why X is more complicated than you might think." Right? Don't be fake, just rationally hold back the impulse to be cynical. The second part takes practice, but nodding, mirroring their body language, shoulders back open stance, etc. are a good start, and you can feel good about doing that if you are genuine, which shows. It all comes down to empathy and knowing how to show it.
But I found the origional Paul Ford source article [1]... and I could be wrong but the way I read it I think it actually is saying to use exactly those words.
I prefer "That's really interesting; what's a day in your life like?" People love talking about this because people spend most of their lives working, so most of their life is work.
"She kept touching me as she talked. I forgave her for that."
Salesmen/Saleswomen know a pat on the back or a touch on the arm can be very disarming. When a stranger touches me purposefully I cannot help but scrutinize the "why?".
A touch on the forearm is what I`ve experienced most from saleswomen, a breast press on my arm has occurred more than once. Always* during a negotiation when I was the prospective buyer.
My experience has been that this works well for job interviews. Spot something that they seem to have struggled with and talk to them all about their solution. Not only do you learn something but it often seems to leave an impression of you being insightful, even though all you did was ask the right question to hear about their insights.
Honestly there's nothing wrong with that either. Someone who can look at your problem/solution and ask the right questions to allow you to evaluate it from a new angle is a valuable coworker to have.
Yea, I sort of just adopted this strategy as a quiet person, but I found out that I couldn't hang out with other people who used this strategy too, because neither of us would be big talkers and were used to participating in at most 20% of the conversation. So now I just make friends with more talkative folks, some of whom border on narcissism. It's alright though, they tend to be interesting.
I've been told that I'm borderline narcissist. That said, I have about the same amount of friends who aren't very talkative and mostly keep to themselves (with those friends I can have very intelligent conversations with) as I have those who are pretty much like me, with whom I can talk about really anything.
For sure keep the talkative ones around, they rub off. You might notice you naturally take the "lead" in convos with people like you as time goes on :)
Everything about this is highly contextual and varies across cultures. Smiling in some situations makes you look powerful, in many others it makes you look weak. Being very animated can make you look carefree in some situations and just wild in others.
The more time I spend in cultures that I didn't grow up in, the more convinced I become that there just aren't any universalities in this direction. Any attempt to do so is to try to generalize over all human behavior and the effort will either be wrong, being that there will be some cultures or situations where the rule doesn't hold, or it'll be useless, essentially telling you what you already know.
I learned a while ago that just asking questions isn't enough - sometimes people don't want to talk, or are really boring, there's too big a group to focus on one person, or just constantly interrogating a person gets weird, etc. So you should have some good stories in your back pocket as well. If you think about the most popular people you know, they aren't well received in social settings because they pepper everyone with questions - they're usually funny, chatty, quick witted, and can either carry or let someone else carry a conversation. Be like that guy/gal, not the one that can only ask questions.
Skimming through the article, I observed that they missed the most important step one must do to get better at talking to people:
Practice!
One doesn't learn how to write code without writing code. One also doesn't learn how to tie their shoes without actually tying shoes. So it follows that one doesn't learn how to become good at people without talking to people.
You've gotta go out! And I'm not talking about grabbing a drink and staying on the sidelines or going to that conference and being glued to your Mac the entire time. You've gotta approach people, and you have to get rejected.
People will walk away. People will ask to be excused. This stuff hurts, but just like a startup, you treat the mistakes as learnings and try again next time. It helps a lot to have a buddy that will help you through the process and give you feedback, since learning on your own (like I did) generally sucks.
How did I learn how to talk to people? I approached hundreds of women to start conversations with them during the morning rush and on the street. nothing deep; usually stuff about food. My dating skills improved slightly, but my conversation skills went through the roof.
There are other things to keep in mind, too. People care way more appearance than they let on, so dressing well and staying healthy go a long way to help you be more. Body language is also something that people look out for without knowing that they're looking out for it. Fixing posture goes a long way towards fixing this too.
"Ask people questions since people love talking about themselves" is common conversational advice I hear.
In general I agree, but it's a bit disheartening when you realize that many people are so happy to talk about themselves that they never bother to ask you about yourself.
> How can you strategically make a good impression? From the outset, frame the conversation with a few well-rehearsed sentences regarding how you want to be perceived.
Klosterman comes to the same realization in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa-Puffs, though from an unlikely angle--the dawn of reality television.
On The Real World, producers had no time to explain anyone's personality in depth, so they boiled each housemate down to a simple stereotype and selectively edited to play up that caricature. On the one hand, it was a trick of production that was massively distorting and harmful to several (most?) of the housemates.
On the other hand, we're all just like the producers when recalling our own interactions.
Like a 20-minute episode, there's just too much ground to cover to get a perfect reproduction of any person's life in a first meeting. A short working draft is the best anyone can hope for. If you help people form that, you can nudge it in a positive direction while also making yourself more memorable.
There was that one time I observed a peculiar quality about a certain CEO. No matter what he was talking about it somehow would always circle back to talking about whatever company he was currently at and the conversation would always end with a joke and hearty laugh for all involved. This happened consistently enough that I thought it was a pre-determined act on his part.
Once I realized he was always practicing I kinda stopped talking to the guy because there was never any genuine interaction. He was always on the job and he was always practicing selling. Every conversation was just another opportunity for him to practice his messaging. I dubbed this mode of interacting and talking ceoesque.
You can definitely learn charisma. I wouldn't call myself a smooth talker (I'm way too frank), but I've got a presence that people respond to. More importantly, 20 years ago I was basically a shut in with crippling social anxiety.
I've found that the big key is getting your mind in order. You can work forever on what to say, but if your head isn't right it won't work. On the other hand, someone who is totally centered can say the most random things and people will still like them. Old buddhist monks demonstrate this beautifully.
hrm... wasn't for me. Not that I'm Mr. Charismatic - but I changed my thinking and perspective of the world, and as a side effect I gained all sorts of charisma from it i've specifically never had before - to the point where I get free food at restaurants I frequent.
To be come charismatic, I think you need to start with your own acceptance. After that, everyone else becomes easier.
I've been the recipient of active listening on more than one occasion and it's made me want to tear that persons lungs out through their mouth. It feels like you're the victim of a corrupt bureaucrat's evil stalling tactic.
Then they're doing it wrong - which is not uncommon. When I learned about active listening, there where a number of adults i remembered growing up who actively listened, and they were the most engaging people.
you were the recipient of people that were terrible and/or just new at active listening. If it's done right, you just feel like you are enjoying the conversation. no different than writing code, playing the piano etc. related, some people are just genuinely interested in other people; that's also not noticeable.
But we've been doing it our entire lives. Children learn their parents and learn how to best manipulate them. Men learn what women respond to and try to orient themselves towards that.
Televangelist Robert Tilton manipulated people in an anti-social way - so don't do that. But Bernie Sanders manipulated millions to become politically and socially engaged.
I think for me, the gauge is: if the other person found out I was actively using tactics on them, would they be angry, or accepting and curious? Tact has a lot to do with it, and who you are otherwise.
On the other hand, prompting people to talk about themselves, assuming you actually listen, doesn't seem terrible to me. I suppose there's a line between purposefully trying to make an impression and hacking people.
It's much more about giving up the attempt to hack people. The last three sentences of the article sum it up well:
Stop trying to impress people or "win" the conversation. It's really much simpler than that. Just listen intently and make people feel good about themselves.
Did you read the article? It's not really about manipulating other people. It's more a list of basic social graces that some people learn on their own or from their parents, but others need to be taught explicitly.
It's just like anything else; some people can tackle new subjects completely on their own, but almost everybody benefits from good advice. Why should advice on getting along well with others be withheld?
I don't think anybody intends to be a bore or a jerk, yet obviously some people are. It affects their lives profoundly, and they may lead lonely lives. Withholding advice on how they could be more likable, if they're so inclined, seems a little cruel. If you'd use the same advice to manipulate people, that's on you.
Communication skills aren't about manipulation, and if you think of it that way you'll be a bad communicator unless you're a sociopath. Instead, think of interactions as an opportunity to create happiness. If you make people happy when you talk to them good things will come to you.
No, it does feel weird, especially when we suppose that the "hacked" person derive no benefit from being "hacked." However, if the "hacker" provides more value to the "hacked" person than the "hacker" captures as a result, the "hacked" person might be OK with the exchange.
This sounds a bit more OK to me, but still the notion of manipulating others does get under my skin.
In a sense it is manipulative to consciously direct someone else's behavior in a way that benefits you. But interacting with people is rarely a zero-sum game. Whatever benefit you derive, warm feelings and enjoying the person they are talking to are both things that the other person probably wants from the conversation as well.
If you go into a conversation and the result is that the other person thinks you are uninteresting and they don't have anything to say, it is negative for everyone involved. Productive conversations are usually productive for both people, it's not likely that you are somehow sapping away something that belonged to another person, rather that you are turning time spent by both parties into something of value to both of you instead of wasting it.
Nah, me too, but I've eventually learned that everyone else expects me to be hacking them slightly. They also expect that they're hacking me, and get pretty shocked when it turns out some of their social graces were flying completely over my head.
The idea is uncomfortable to me at least. I think it's useful to learn better social skills, but there's a risk of being less genuine when the approach is geared towards people specifically liking you.
In some ways being a person people love to talk to is a burden. It takes time. Sometimes it's worth it. Quite often (and this sounds cold but it's true) it isn't.
Other people do make life good though and it's certainly a valuable skill. Just, it comes at a price.
reply