On the topic of "support your friends", if there's a funeral for someone you weren't super close with but your friend knew well and you're not sure whether to go, I would recommend just going, sitting up the back, offering your condolences if the opportunity comes up, and leaving.
I've failed to do this twice. Nobody else said or did anything, but I regretted it.
Well the thing is, that sometimes being there and giving them a nod is already saying enough. No need for words. Showing them you care is appropriate if you really do.
> I broke down every funeral I went to and would rather avoid that in the future.
I understand it can be emotionally challenging, but arguably that expression of grief is what provides meaning to attending a funeral. Furthermore, if you don't attend a close friend's funeral, don't expect him or her to attend yours.
This is the worst advice someone could give. It absolutely is ok to decide on your own if it's good for you and the others if you attend or not. I wouldn't want anyone to come to my funeral just because others expect him to.
I read that as the author, going to the funeral, broke down. That is they felt devastated emotionally, internally and possibly externally as in "broke down crying".
The funeral itself probably continued without any issues. I guess that's another social skills lesson, the world carries on regardless of your emotions.
3rd option is you just don't understand. This is language people use to describe narcissists. Flying monkeys are people who help them manipulate others and vampires are "emotional vampires". Poster was saying a narcissist had died, leaving their support people leaderless.
I've found that no mater what country I've been to, or what social classes the people belong to, three topics have a 95% success rate when it comes to social relations with guys: sports, cars, fishing/hunting. And to some degree handywork.
It is a bit unfortunate, as I'm not at all interested in talking about those things - but they are such staple topics, that you can come off as a sort of outcast if you can't keep a short convo on those things.
Another observation has been that some topics are very polarized. In some countries you can talk pretty freely about politics, while in other places it is a faux pas.
But then again, part of finding out what the other party likes talking about is a skill in itself.
Your comment is the only one hateful here. Where I'm from there are absolutely different topics to talk to men and women. You may hate it as much as you like, but that's the world many of us live in.
While I’ve yet to meet somebody into fishing or hunting, I agree about cars and sports. Unfortunately since I have interest in neither it can be hard to fit in sometime.
Weirdly, as somebody non interested in these common topics it also feels like it’s up to you to figure out a topic of common interest and it really isn’t.
About sports also, most people super “into” sports don’t do any. Which is ironic because a conversation about technique is something I’ll gladly have.
Yeah, I noticed this too about sportball people - they’re generally out of shape and not actually athletic (I’m fit and active in several outdoor sports). I just find watching or talking about sports excruciatingly boring. To me it’s the same thing as pornography, watching other people who are really good at it while you are a bystander, but your brain gets the physiological and-psychological signal that you’re actually part of the action. Though I don’t recommend the latter as a potential topic of conversation.
I don't have the same experience at all. The people who I know and have met which enjoy watching sports come at all levels of fitness. I am not that interested myself but quite many of the members of my running club enjoy watching sports and some of them can run 3 hour marathons.
And if you have ever met football ultras most of them are very fit.
For the few times where I had to speak to someone about topics I don't care much about, I found that simply asking questions to learn about them ( as well as the person I'm speaking to) is enough.
"What team do you support? Has it always been the case? How do you think they compare to <well-known other good team>?"
"What car do you drive? Any particular reason for that car model? What's the brand's best and worst things? Oh, that piece tends to break easily; pardon my ignorance, but what's the purpose of it?"
"Any key difference in the way you hunt/fish this or that animal, or the time of the year during which you hunt/fish? I don't know that word, what does it mean? Do you have any anecdotes about some hunting/fishing you did?"
Those have to be adapted to the person and situation, but they are pretty good to keep a conversation going. People love to speak about their interests, and a lot love to even teach about them. Putting yourself as the listener makes them perceive you as nice, and you might even gather interesting information to yourself, or at least gather enough knowledge to have an easier time speaking about it next time.
You don't need to know much about sports. If you can just keep up with what's in season that's typically enough. Who do you think will go to the super bowl? Have you done a final four bracket? are great questions as long as it's the right time of year.
In my country (western Europe) talking about hunting/fishing would put get you side looks and take you for a very rural or conservative weirdo.
Sports and cars is more common with the older generation, but anyone below 35 will probably be uninterested, unless your circle is finance or blue collar work.
> I've found that no mater what country I've been to, or what social classes the people belong to, three topics have a 95% success rate when it comes to social relations with guys: sports, cars, fishing/hunting. And to some degree handywork.
Have you generally been to the Americas and Western Europe? Sports is the one universal, that makes sense in my experience too. But most people outside the rich upper class don't give a hoot about cars anywhere in the parts of Asia I've been to. And if you talked about fishing/hunting, you'd probably get weird looks trying to decide if you came from some modern hunter-gatherer cult.
Talking about cars in Western Europe isn't that safe bet either. In cities like Stockholm most people are not interested in cars. And similarily hunting and fishing are niche interests in urban areas.
Hunting is extremely rare (and generally an indicator of old money or living in an extremely rural environment).
Fishing is a lot more popular but even that tends to date you a bit. At least for Eastern Europe, fishing is a lot more popular among the 45+ year olds.
OP is primarily speaking about a North American perspective, I think.
"Going/been anywhere nice recently" is a pretty good one in the UK - most people have some kind of holiday and I don't follow football and my interest in cars is probably limited to my occasional bouts of incandescent rage at people not signalling correctly on roundabouts...
I read the page https://www.succeedsocially.com/morefun. Here's my initial impressions. Pros: it identified several important painpoints and give several decent examples. Cons: Being a truly fun person is all about reaction reaction reaction. Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable), ridiculously (while reading the room), and intelligently (playing to the top of the crowd's intelligence).
> Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable)
But here you explain exactly what is difficult. It's like walking a tightrope and someone tells you not to fall to the left and by the way, also not to the right.
Consider the intended audience though. This is for people who are lost and need perspective and concrete steps for improving. Compared to all the "fake it 'till you make it" or "just stop caring" type of advice, it's helpful.
A lot of "social skills" content drifts into pickup-artist-y territory, so it's refreshing when something frames it around comfort, support, and actual connection instead of just "winning" interactions
Mainstream pickup artists yea. Some niche ones, not really. Wayne Elise feels like a good example, from back in the day.
On a throwaway because the judgmental people will judge me for the rest of my life due to me nuancing that not all people associated to pickup artists looked at social interactions in a zero sum way.
Agreed, it feels risky to just be associated these days, even if it's "adjacent" groups that explicitly don't want to be part of the "mechanical" side of improving social skills like "classical" PUA.
But, no way to change that in public perception without taking risks and being open about it.
So, if you're an HN reader, not wanting to be branded as a PUA but still want to find help socially (especially romantically), my two cents is look into the Ars Amorata community.
> But, no way to change that in public perception without taking risks and being open about it.
Yea, I can't take it. I've fixed my dating life but I'm not a charismatic leader by any stretch of the imagination. I've taken multiple stabs in Reddit threads but there is just no good faith discussion to be had. I've also tried it a bit on HN. On HN it's also very dicey.
> So, if you're an HN reader, not wanting to be branded as a PUA but still want to find help socially (especially romantically), my two cents is look into the Ars Amorata community.
Interesting, will check it out. I don't need help by the way. I'm married. And for social skills that I'm still lacking, I know where to go. Unfortunately, not all social skills in dating transfer well to work social skills.
Edit: just checked it out. Good to see Zan is still doing his thing. I remember him "I love women". He definitely influenced me with that quote back in the day.
The founder seems to have missed the opportunity to make a classical reference to Ovid's writing on love, instead constructing some ungrammatical Latin.
I wonder why this was written as these very small paragraphs with only a few lines of content? Apart from the hosting issues due to hackernews it leads to a lot of intros and 'in the next section we will learn...' but the actually useful content is quite little and you have to dig hard for it. I'd personally favor a normal article.
I found it frustrating because of all the links everywhere. In the “How to use this guide” section it links to a body language section.
But there’s no context as to where this body language section fits in.
Am I supposed to read the body language section now and then remember to go back to the how to section? Or is body language discussed later? Then why link to it now? This format stresses me out.
Maybe I'm weird, but I find the writing style almost condescending.
It's a style I've seen elsewhere as well so not particular to this site, but I find it grating and off-putting. Feels like it treats me like a 4 year old.
Mask every day. Life goal: Be 100% artificial person. All openings and responses must be calculated and faked. Your inner self is faulty and not appropriate at any situation. Once you train and work hard enough to suppress it at all times forever, you may be accepted and allowed to participate.
"Be yourself" is not wrong, but it's not specific enough.
You can be perfectly authentic, but that doesn't mean being socially uncalibrated.
Get good at being sociable, then blend that with your personal tastes and preferences.
I thought "be yourself" was fine until I grew up and learned I was just being rude to most people and called myself introverted when I didn't make friends.
What are you trying to make though? You're pretending to want the same things the people you think you need to fit in with want, but if you don't actually want those things, what point is there to be in a competition to get them?
Social skills is moslty compromises. It’s kind of a protocol that signals that you’re not unfriendly, and if you’re part of a community, that you’re ready to pitch in, when someone or the entire community needs help.
Humans are social creatures. If you truly don't have the same desires as most - friendship, companionship, even career gain - then sure, it's purposeless. But why are you even in this thread then? If you clearly are actively dis- interested in this topic. Otherwise, skydhash is correct - it's about compromise.
Which is fun and great if you came out as a happy cool human.
If you made it through the weird unadjusted side without any gimmick you just loose.
No one has to force you to stay what your surroundings made you. It's not your personality it's just a reflection and you can change it and make it better for you by adjusting and reflecting.
Sometimes people already are like something and don't want to change it or feel like they could change it, but also don't get along being like they are. This is more awkward to think about than just treating them as damaged or incomplete people who would get around to becoming people who can fit in fine once the damage is fixed or the incomplete development is completed, because it's harder to see good solutions.
You severely underestimate the biological side of things regarding social interaction. Neurodivergent people are what we are not just bc "surroundings made us so"
Then I don't understand what you are arguing about. If you're neurodivergent, you would always require self awareness and masking, faked as op rightfully stated. You could never natural, no matter what circumstances were.
After COVID, I stopped caring and trying to fake being a normal person, and choose just to be me, alone.
I wasn't good at trying to be normal, and it's so much nicer to be free to not bother to make the effort and not be me. But I have no friends or good relationships with family (who don't understand or tolerate who I am).
This is a very American society focused guide, a lot of these wouldn't even apply in Europe an especially not if you travel to Asia, Middle East, or Africa
> Interestingly enough, not nearly as much gets published for e.g. Europe. Innate ability ?
From my personal feeling:
US culture is more on the extraverted side (i.e. a lot of people want/need shallow conversation instead of shutting their mouth, except if they have something important to say) than what is common in many European countries.
Thus, people who are more on the introvert side have a harder time in the USA than in many European countries, I guess.
Also, for various reason the whole "self-improvement industrial complex" is much less prevalent in European countries than in the USA.
Relatedly, I would say that in the USA, there is the mentality "Our society is the greatest ever made since God created Earth, so if you don't feel happy, the fault is on you: you need to self-improve."
On the other hand, in many European countries, the mentality is rather like "The society [note that I didn't write "our" - there is barely any sense of belonging] is a corrupt, messed-up shithole. Yes, there exist those smooth talkers who tell you that you need to self-improve (e.g. social skills), but do you know what: those just want to make money from the mess you are in, and/or are telling you the things that those in power want you to brainwash with. So, instead of wasting time and money to get yourself a brainwashing to make yourself 'socially adapted', better invest this energy into exposing all these assholes in power who are responsible for the whole mess. Since there are so many people who also have this kind of hate, you will easily find friends this way, and thus become more socially skilled." :-)
>Relatedly, I would say that in the USA, there is the mentality "Our society is the greatest ever made since God created Earth, so if you don't feel happy, the fault is on you: you need to self-improve."
Unjustified self deprecation can lead to dereliction. IMO Americans feel this way because it's appropriate to.
Yup, in Europe you either have a 100 gun salute if you're new money or a Navy destroyer casually and coincidental floats by your house on the Rivera when the souffle is served, if you're old money.
For those who think they are decent at socializing, one book that may extend your skill further is ' Never split the difference'. Its a book about negotiating, but I think it does teach some key skills. Mirroring for example where you literally repeat back the last few words a person has said, I've found unexpectedly super useful - it almost allows people to expand on what they are saying and helps them go deeper into things. Basically the book (and other tools) has helped me become a better listener (I have always been decent at the talking side).
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Never-Split-Difference-Negotiating-...
Note: I only 'mirror' 2-3 times in a conversation. I've found over using it makes it have less impact. But that's just me.
Agreed that is a classic - I think the essentials are true but the language is a bit dated.
Definitely "trying to think positively about people and their actions/understand them", and giving people "a sense of importance" are very helpful social skills.
This is a bit of a long shot, but a lot my social embarrassment comes from my tendency to mumble / be hard to understand. Anyone on here have any experience with improving at that stuff?
This may sound unhelpful, but just try to notice when you do it and then speak more clearly. Try to minimize the amount of "What" as a response to what you say.
If you have a medical type of problem that's of course not applicable.
Studied Film and worked professionally in overdubbing for a while. I recommend in that order:
1. figure out if your mumbling is just a habit or a logopedic issue
2. get a speakers training of the type actors or radio hosts would
If you wonder whether it is worth it, just consider how important it is in both your private and professional life to be clearly understood. There has been a study during the pandemic that showed that people who had the better sound quality in conferences would get their ideas through more often. This is truly the case for spoken words as well.
I hope they cover managing your own emotions: staying calm, responding with empathy, and breaking avoidance patterns.
In my last few relationships, I've been having to do relationship coaching with partners because their parents failed to teach them responding with physical or emotional violence is not how you maintain friendships or relationships.
I've worked with lots of folks on the spectrum and to be honest it's more fun dealing with them as team members rather than "normies".
One guy particularly stands out, he joined the team and started off on a solo run with a couple of projects a few others were involved in. A few weeks later I asked him if he'd setup any meetings with the team to get context and, you know, say hello and his response was "why should I do that, can't they read my PRs?". Classic.
Another one was the very loudly self-diagnosed neurodiverse girl, who seemed to just use it as cover for being a total jerk. Eventually she had to be managed out, as she tipped the scale between doing good work and tolerance of odd behaviors too far - screaming in meetings, histrionics and stuff you'd expect more of someone living on a street corner.
> I asked him if he'd setup any meetings with the team to get context and, you know, say hello and his response was "why should I do that, can't they read my PRs?". Classic.
Ditto. The contributions are saying 'hello' and soliciting input, in one. Also providing the contributor with an opportunity to learn the product in their terms.
I know, I know. The horror of an individual for us all.
I assume the proposition is this: one has no chance to produce value without firm guidance from the onset. Or the time learning is a tragedy. I doubt both of these very much. PRs are another conversation.
The others are free to take their turns. In this hypothetical, apparently, the other side has been unresponsive. Where's their ire; left behind at the bar?
Sorry we didn't apply the correct social pressure or wait until everyone was available at the same time for a call, I guess. I understand how that might hurt optics... I, the baby with superpowers in this scenario, just don't/can't care.
Handholding isn't a requirement. Guess what is: communicating the changes. Look at the PRs. Now that management is involved, we can have a meeting about them going unattended.
I assume the proposition is that trust between coworkers is important (even if you're autistic) and the best way to build extra trust with someone, on top of what you'd normally build just working with them, is to interact with them socially (unless they're autistic and haven't memorised this pattern, in such case they'll just be confused and annoyed).
I think your assumption that this is about "firm guidance" and "optics" and is an insult to your "superpowers" is unlikely to be the motivation.
"How can we have any pudding if we don't eat our meat?!"
Let's worry about extra trust once they start earning trust (and, arguably, their pay) by reviewing the PRs. Leaving those floating deserves none, from nobody.
To reiterate the original post, behaving as if they're a member of the team would be quite welcome, actually. Fun, no: work.
Yet these rules aren’t so radically different that there aren’t any common patterns. For instance, noticing people’s birthday and adding them to your calendar so that you can congratulate them is a small, yet very powerful tip that works in pretty much everyday social circle.
As an introvert I'd argue those are basically just: "be empathic". That means you should not treat others in a way that annoys or demeans them – because you yourself would not like that either, right?
Empathy implies you can feel with others. Example: You are a man and you talk to a woman. Being empathic means you have a clear mental image of what it might feel like to be a woman and can thus avoid saying things that aren't funny, like sexist bullshit. Or you talk to a student/junior and remember what it felt like when you had no fucking clue and how shitty it was when the old greybeards would scoff at you, with empathy you can talk to people where they are instead of highlighting the difference between you and them.
Most communicative problems I have ever seen (aside from language barriers) could have been resolved by a little bit of empathy.
> Most communicative problems I have ever seen (aside from language barriers) could have been resolved by a little bit of empathy.
Empathy is usually an internal process. On it's own, it wont't resolve a communication problem.
What ends up affecting a communication problem are the external actions that we take based on our internal empathy calculus (assuming we haven't totally miscalculated). Those actions will vary significantly by person and context, assuming any action follows at all.
Empathy is the relatively easy part. Acting on that empathy in a way that doesn't come across as condescending, disengaged, presumptious, judgemental, awkward, or scripted, while also remaining true to yourself and upholding your personal values are the hard parts.
I think this guide is already failing people by assuming successfully initiated conversations and labeling it as "basic". If you have plenty of social contacts, that already warrants being considered "intermediate".
The really difficult things are maintaining good first impression and talking to (perceived) strangers. You know nothing about a person until you talk with that person, so what exactly are you supposed to do? There is a bootstrapping problem.
Classified ads are a good example. It's not like ebay, where you click a button and the delivered product is guaranteed to arrive a few days later. Instead you get a blank form of nothing, where you can write whatever you want and there is always the possibility of rejection. It's very much unlike any store you've ever visited, where money is king and the customer('s money) is always right.
This applies to teaching anything ever; it's the difference between teaching the thing and teaching about the thing. It's a caveat to keep in mind, sure, but not much more.
On the topic of "support your friends", if there's a funeral for someone you weren't super close with but your friend knew well and you're not sure whether to go, I would recommend just going, sitting up the back, offering your condolences if the opportunity comes up, and leaving.
I've failed to do this twice. Nobody else said or did anything, but I regretted it.
Well the thing is, that sometimes being there and giving them a nod is already saying enough. No need for words. Showing them you care is appropriate if you really do.
"Words aren't remembered, but presence is."
In those moments it's rarely about you having the "right" words
It's also ok not to attend funerals at all, even if you were close. I broke down every funeral I went to and would rather avoid that in the future.
> I broke down every funeral I went to and would rather avoid that in the future.
I understand it can be emotionally challenging, but arguably that expression of grief is what provides meaning to attending a funeral. Furthermore, if you don't attend a close friend's funeral, don't expect him or her to attend yours.
> if you don't attend a close friend's funeral, don't expect him or her to attend yours.
Well, regardless if you attend your friend's funeral or not, you can be sure he or she will not attend yours.
There's nothing to be ashamed of when crying while being faced with the limitedness of life.
Still doesn't wanna make me do it in public.
It is not ok. Be an adult and deal with the emotional discomfort to pay your last respects.
This is the worst advice someone could give. It absolutely is ok to decide on your own if it's good for you and the others if you attend or not. I wouldn't want anyone to come to my funeral just because others expect him to.
It’s absolutely okay to prioritize the needs and comfort of the living.
The guest of honor won’t notice, I promise.
If the other (living) attendees have a problem with it, it’s at least 51% a them problem, IMO.
I think that's the point, showing vulnerability in front of others helps them to trust you.
[flagged]
I read that as the author, going to the funeral, broke down. That is they felt devastated emotionally, internally and possibly externally as in "broke down crying".
The funeral itself probably continued without any issues. I guess that's another social skills lesson, the world carries on regardless of your emotions.
“Break down” means to cry.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Is this AI spam or psychosis? I don't understand.
3rd option is you just don't understand. This is language people use to describe narcissists. Flying monkeys are people who help them manipulate others and vampires are "emotional vampires". Poster was saying a narcissist had died, leaving their support people leaderless.
A reference to the Wizard of Oz movie? I hadn't heard this jargon before.
I've found that no mater what country I've been to, or what social classes the people belong to, three topics have a 95% success rate when it comes to social relations with guys: sports, cars, fishing/hunting. And to some degree handywork.
It is a bit unfortunate, as I'm not at all interested in talking about those things - but they are such staple topics, that you can come off as a sort of outcast if you can't keep a short convo on those things.
Another observation has been that some topics are very polarized. In some countries you can talk pretty freely about politics, while in other places it is a faux pas.
But then again, part of finding out what the other party likes talking about is a skill in itself.
Which countries have you been to? Sports I'll give you. Cars are already questionable. But fishing and hunting!?
Now I'm interested: what are your top three topics for talking to women? :)
> Now I'm interested: what are your top three topics for talking to women? :)
Obviously, the exact same topics for talking to men?
Can't believe you would make such a hateful and misogynistic comment.
Your comment is the only one hateful here. Where I'm from there are absolutely different topics to talk to men and women. You may hate it as much as you like, but that's the world many of us live in.
Have you found a generally equal level of interest in hunting, fishing, sports, and cars across the genders?
That’s not been my experience and I seek to adapt my conversational topics to the audience’s interest.
While I’ve yet to meet somebody into fishing or hunting, I agree about cars and sports. Unfortunately since I have interest in neither it can be hard to fit in sometime.
Weirdly, as somebody non interested in these common topics it also feels like it’s up to you to figure out a topic of common interest and it really isn’t.
About sports also, most people super “into” sports don’t do any. Which is ironic because a conversation about technique is something I’ll gladly have.
Yeah, I noticed this too about sportball people - they’re generally out of shape and not actually athletic (I’m fit and active in several outdoor sports). I just find watching or talking about sports excruciatingly boring. To me it’s the same thing as pornography, watching other people who are really good at it while you are a bystander, but your brain gets the physiological and-psychological signal that you’re actually part of the action. Though I don’t recommend the latter as a potential topic of conversation.
I don't have the same experience at all. The people who I know and have met which enjoy watching sports come at all levels of fitness. I am not that interested myself but quite many of the members of my running club enjoy watching sports and some of them can run 3 hour marathons.
And if you have ever met football ultras most of them are very fit.
For the few times where I had to speak to someone about topics I don't care much about, I found that simply asking questions to learn about them ( as well as the person I'm speaking to) is enough.
"What team do you support? Has it always been the case? How do you think they compare to <well-known other good team>?" "What car do you drive? Any particular reason for that car model? What's the brand's best and worst things? Oh, that piece tends to break easily; pardon my ignorance, but what's the purpose of it?" "Any key difference in the way you hunt/fish this or that animal, or the time of the year during which you hunt/fish? I don't know that word, what does it mean? Do you have any anecdotes about some hunting/fishing you did?"
Those have to be adapted to the person and situation, but they are pretty good to keep a conversation going. People love to speak about their interests, and a lot love to even teach about them. Putting yourself as the listener makes them perceive you as nice, and you might even gather interesting information to yourself, or at least gather enough knowledge to have an easier time speaking about it next time.
Being a good listener is key for any relationship, however brief it may be.
You don't need to know much about sports. If you can just keep up with what's in season that's typically enough. Who do you think will go to the super bowl? Have you done a final four bracket? are great questions as long as it's the right time of year.
If only someone could create an app or website to help us uninformed out with common phrases to use. Sentences like:
"Did you see that ludicrous display last night?"
The thing about Arsenal is they always try to walk it in.
In my country (western Europe) talking about hunting/fishing would put get you side looks and take you for a very rural or conservative weirdo.
Sports and cars is more common with the older generation, but anyone below 35 will probably be uninterested, unless your circle is finance or blue collar work.
What do people talk about in your country?
> I've found that no mater what country I've been to, or what social classes the people belong to, three topics have a 95% success rate when it comes to social relations with guys: sports, cars, fishing/hunting. And to some degree handywork.
Have you generally been to the Americas and Western Europe? Sports is the one universal, that makes sense in my experience too. But most people outside the rich upper class don't give a hoot about cars anywhere in the parts of Asia I've been to. And if you talked about fishing/hunting, you'd probably get weird looks trying to decide if you came from some modern hunter-gatherer cult.
Talking about cars in Western Europe isn't that safe bet either. In cities like Stockholm most people are not interested in cars. And similarily hunting and fishing are niche interests in urban areas.
What do Asians talk about then?
Even in Western Europe.
Hunting is extremely rare (and generally an indicator of old money or living in an extremely rural environment).
Fishing is a lot more popular but even that tends to date you a bit. At least for Eastern Europe, fishing is a lot more popular among the 45+ year olds.
OP is primarily speaking about a North American perspective, I think.
Even here in Sweden a lot of the people fishing are older Polish immigrants unless you live in s rural area.
"Going/been anywhere nice recently" is a pretty good one in the UK - most people have some kind of holiday and I don't follow football and my interest in cars is probably limited to my occasional bouts of incandescent rage at people not signalling correctly on roundabouts...
In the US I was taught you don’t need to signal at roundabouts. Am I doing something terribly wrong?
Yeah, it's kind of the social equivalent of knowing a few phrases in another language
The best guide I have ever seen is https://succeedsocially.com/
It’s so unbelievably straightforward and useful. It’s unfortunate that I discovered it after learning everything the hard way.
It's not bad. Maybe 7/10.
I read the page https://www.succeedsocially.com/morefun. Here's my initial impressions. Pros: it identified several important painpoints and give several decent examples. Cons: Being a truly fun person is all about reaction reaction reaction. Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable), ridiculously (while reading the room), and intelligently (playing to the top of the crowd's intelligence).
> Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable)
But here you explain exactly what is difficult. It's like walking a tightrope and someone tells you not to fall to the left and by the way, also not to the right.
Consider the intended audience though. This is for people who are lost and need perspective and concrete steps for improving. Compared to all the "fake it 'till you make it" or "just stop caring" type of advice, it's helpful.
Great comment - it feels very true
Great link. Wish there was more writing like this out there.
https://archive.ph/zqFVm
A lot of "social skills" content drifts into pickup-artist-y territory, so it's refreshing when something frames it around comfort, support, and actual connection instead of just "winning" interactions
> instead of just "winning" interactions
Mainstream pickup artists yea. Some niche ones, not really. Wayne Elise feels like a good example, from back in the day.
On a throwaway because the judgmental people will judge me for the rest of my life due to me nuancing that not all people associated to pickup artists looked at social interactions in a zero sum way.
Agreed, it feels risky to just be associated these days, even if it's "adjacent" groups that explicitly don't want to be part of the "mechanical" side of improving social skills like "classical" PUA.
But, no way to change that in public perception without taking risks and being open about it.
So, if you're an HN reader, not wanting to be branded as a PUA but still want to find help socially (especially romantically), my two cents is look into the Ars Amorata community.
> But, no way to change that in public perception without taking risks and being open about it.
Yea, I can't take it. I've fixed my dating life but I'm not a charismatic leader by any stretch of the imagination. I've taken multiple stabs in Reddit threads but there is just no good faith discussion to be had. I've also tried it a bit on HN. On HN it's also very dicey.
> So, if you're an HN reader, not wanting to be branded as a PUA but still want to find help socially (especially romantically), my two cents is look into the Ars Amorata community.
Interesting, will check it out. I don't need help by the way. I'm married. And for social skills that I'm still lacking, I know where to go. Unfortunately, not all social skills in dating transfer well to work social skills.
Edit: just checked it out. Good to see Zan is still doing his thing. I remember him "I love women". He definitely influenced me with that quote back in the day.
The founder seems to have missed the opportunity to make a classical reference to Ovid's writing on love, instead constructing some ungrammatical Latin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Amatoria
It's on purpose! Quirks of the group kind of thing.
I wonder why this was written as these very small paragraphs with only a few lines of content? Apart from the hosting issues due to hackernews it leads to a lot of intros and 'in the next section we will learn...' but the actually useful content is quite little and you have to dig hard for it. I'd personally favor a normal article.
I found it frustrating because of all the links everywhere. In the “How to use this guide” section it links to a body language section.
But there’s no context as to where this body language section fits in.
Am I supposed to read the body language section now and then remember to go back to the how to section? Or is body language discussed later? Then why link to it now? This format stresses me out.
Most likely, it's for tracking reasons. To figure out what sections people hit more and less...
I agree with you though. It's sad that content is being reformulated for those reasons.
Maybe I'm weird, but I find the writing style almost condescending.
It's a style I've seen elsewhere as well so not particular to this site, but I find it grating and off-putting. Feels like it treats me like a 4 year old.
Finally something for an LLM to crawl and assemble into a coherent document that can be read from start to finish.
Mask every day. Life goal: Be 100% artificial person. All openings and responses must be calculated and faked. Your inner self is faulty and not appropriate at any situation. Once you train and work hard enough to suppress it at all times forever, you may be accepted and allowed to participate.
Fake it till you make it.
"Be yourself" is not wrong, but it's not specific enough.
You can be perfectly authentic, but that doesn't mean being socially uncalibrated.
Get good at being sociable, then blend that with your personal tastes and preferences.
I thought "be yourself" was fine until I grew up and learned I was just being rude to most people and called myself introverted when I didn't make friends.
> Fake it till you make it.
What are you trying to make though? You're pretending to want the same things the people you think you need to fit in with want, but if you don't actually want those things, what point is there to be in a competition to get them?
Social skills is moslty compromises. It’s kind of a protocol that signals that you’re not unfriendly, and if you’re part of a community, that you’re ready to pitch in, when someone or the entire community needs help.
Humans are social creatures. If you truly don't have the same desires as most - friendship, companionship, even career gain - then sure, it's purposeless. But why are you even in this thread then? If you clearly are actively dis- interested in this topic. Otherwise, skydhash is correct - it's about compromise.
You are what you are because of circumstances.
Which is fun and great if you came out as a happy cool human.
If you made it through the weird unadjusted side without any gimmick you just loose.
No one has to force you to stay what your surroundings made you. It's not your personality it's just a reflection and you can change it and make it better for you by adjusting and reflecting.
Sometimes people already are like something and don't want to change it or feel like they could change it, but also don't get along being like they are. This is more awkward to think about than just treating them as damaged or incomplete people who would get around to becoming people who can fit in fine once the damage is fixed or the incomplete development is completed, because it's harder to see good solutions.
You severely underestimate the biological side of things regarding social interaction. Neurodivergent people are what we are not just bc "surroundings made us so"
That includes people like me who are neurodivergent
And I'm also not shaming anyone not wanting or unable to chain themselves.
It was a statement about the uniqueness of ones character and the agency of controlling it/changing or adjusting it by yourself
Then I don't understand what you are arguing about. If you're neurodivergent, you would always require self awareness and masking, faked as op rightfully stated. You could never natural, no matter what circumstances were.
I changed very slowly and steady over the last 20 years.
This has very little to do with masking.
This hits home.
After COVID, I stopped caring and trying to fake being a normal person, and choose just to be me, alone.
I wasn't good at trying to be normal, and it's so much nicer to be free to not bother to make the effort and not be me. But I have no friends or good relationships with family (who don't understand or tolerate who I am).
This is a very American society focused guide, a lot of these wouldn't even apply in Europe an especially not if you travel to Asia, Middle East, or Africa
Interestingly enough, not nearly as much gets published for e.g. Europe. Innate ability ?
Maybe there are more languages than english in Europe?
> Interestingly enough, not nearly as much gets published for e.g. Europe. Innate ability ?
From my personal feeling:
US culture is more on the extraverted side (i.e. a lot of people want/need shallow conversation instead of shutting their mouth, except if they have something important to say) than what is common in many European countries.
Thus, people who are more on the introvert side have a harder time in the USA than in many European countries, I guess.
Also, for various reason the whole "self-improvement industrial complex" is much less prevalent in European countries than in the USA.
Relatedly, I would say that in the USA, there is the mentality "Our society is the greatest ever made since God created Earth, so if you don't feel happy, the fault is on you: you need to self-improve."
On the other hand, in many European countries, the mentality is rather like "The society [note that I didn't write "our" - there is barely any sense of belonging] is a corrupt, messed-up shithole. Yes, there exist those smooth talkers who tell you that you need to self-improve (e.g. social skills), but do you know what: those just want to make money from the mess you are in, and/or are telling you the things that those in power want you to brainwash with. So, instead of wasting time and money to get yourself a brainwashing to make yourself 'socially adapted', better invest this energy into exposing all these assholes in power who are responsible for the whole mess. Since there are so many people who also have this kind of hate, you will easily find friends this way, and thus become more socially skilled." :-)
>Relatedly, I would say that in the USA, there is the mentality "Our society is the greatest ever made since God created Earth, so if you don't feel happy, the fault is on you: you need to self-improve."
Unjustified self deprecation can lead to dereliction. IMO Americans feel this way because it's appropriate to.
What wouldn’t apply to Europe?
The 10-gun salute when strangers come over to your house.
Yup, in Europe you either have a 100 gun salute if you're new money or a Navy destroyer casually and coincidental floats by your house on the Rivera when the souffle is served, if you're old money.
For those who think they are decent at socializing, one book that may extend your skill further is ' Never split the difference'. Its a book about negotiating, but I think it does teach some key skills. Mirroring for example where you literally repeat back the last few words a person has said, I've found unexpectedly super useful - it almost allows people to expand on what they are saying and helps them go deeper into things. Basically the book (and other tools) has helped me become a better listener (I have always been decent at the talking side). https://www.amazon.co.uk/Never-Split-Difference-Negotiating-...
Note: I only 'mirror' 2-3 times in a conversation. I've found over using it makes it have less impact. But that's just me.
There's also the classic 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. Many later books are rehashing of parts of HTWFAIP.
Agreed that is a classic - I think the essentials are true but the language is a bit dated. Definitely "trying to think positively about people and their actions/understand them", and giving people "a sense of importance" are very helpful social skills.
That's my experience as well. I just ask questions or talk to you like we are trying to find out more about whatever it is you are talking about.
And the book gives you a few useful tools to do that.
This is a bit of a long shot, but a lot my social embarrassment comes from my tendency to mumble / be hard to understand. Anyone on here have any experience with improving at that stuff?
This may sound unhelpful, but just try to notice when you do it and then speak more clearly. Try to minimize the amount of "What" as a response to what you say.
If you have a medical type of problem that's of course not applicable.
Take a look at Vinh Giang [1], he specializes in communication skills and vocal clarity, and is a super fun guy to listen to speak.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/@askvinh
Studied Film and worked professionally in overdubbing for a while. I recommend in that order:
1. figure out if your mumbling is just a habit or a logopedic issue
2. get a speakers training of the type actors or radio hosts would
If you wonder whether it is worth it, just consider how important it is in both your private and professional life to be clearly understood. There has been a study during the pandemic that showed that people who had the better sound quality in conferences would get their ideas through more often. This is truly the case for spoken words as well.
I hope they cover managing your own emotions: staying calm, responding with empathy, and breaking avoidance patterns.
In my last few relationships, I've been having to do relationship coaching with partners because their parents failed to teach them responding with physical or emotional violence is not how you maintain friendships or relationships.
I've worked with lots of folks on the spectrum and to be honest it's more fun dealing with them as team members rather than "normies".
One guy particularly stands out, he joined the team and started off on a solo run with a couple of projects a few others were involved in. A few weeks later I asked him if he'd setup any meetings with the team to get context and, you know, say hello and his response was "why should I do that, can't they read my PRs?". Classic.
Another one was the very loudly self-diagnosed neurodiverse girl, who seemed to just use it as cover for being a total jerk. Eventually she had to be managed out, as she tipped the scale between doing good work and tolerance of odd behaviors too far - screaming in meetings, histrionics and stuff you'd expect more of someone living on a street corner.
that surely might be a... diversion from boring work, but fun? fun is something else
> I asked him if he'd setup any meetings with the team to get context and, you know, say hello and his response was "why should I do that, can't they read my PRs?". Classic.
That would have been my reply, too.
Ditto. The contributions are saying 'hello' and soliciting input, in one. Also providing the contributor with an opportunity to learn the product in their terms.
I know, I know. The horror of an individual for us all.
I assume the proposition is this: one has no chance to produce value without firm guidance from the onset. Or the time learning is a tragedy. I doubt both of these very much. PRs are another conversation.
The others are free to take their turns. In this hypothetical, apparently, the other side has been unresponsive. Where's their ire; left behind at the bar?
Sorry we didn't apply the correct social pressure or wait until everyone was available at the same time for a call, I guess. I understand how that might hurt optics... I, the baby with superpowers in this scenario, just don't/can't care.
Handholding isn't a requirement. Guess what is: communicating the changes. Look at the PRs. Now that management is involved, we can have a meeting about them going unattended.
I assume the proposition is that trust between coworkers is important (even if you're autistic) and the best way to build extra trust with someone, on top of what you'd normally build just working with them, is to interact with them socially (unless they're autistic and haven't memorised this pattern, in such case they'll just be confused and annoyed).
I think your assumption that this is about "firm guidance" and "optics" and is an insult to your "superpowers" is unlikely to be the motivation.
"How can we have any pudding if we don't eat our meat?!"
Let's worry about extra trust once they start earning trust (and, arguably, their pay) by reviewing the PRs. Leaving those floating deserves none, from nobody.
To reiterate the original post, behaving as if they're a member of the team would be quite welcome, actually. Fun, no: work.
[dead]
Hm, that’s all a bit shallow, isn’t it? Can anyone recommend a more thorough source?
Life. It's a live and learn type thing. Social has everything to do with the social club you're in. Every club has different rules.
Yet these rules aren’t so radically different that there aren’t any common patterns. For instance, noticing people’s birthday and adding them to your calendar so that you can congratulate them is a small, yet very powerful tip that works in pretty much everyday social circle.
Being able to communicate despite differences in status.
Don't try to qualify people.
Do not let others feel contempt.
Don't speak any words outside what someone would commonly be able to accept.
Suppression of ego so others are not uncomfortable. Knowing when to not suppress it if others think you are fake.
What does don't try to qualify people mean to you? Does it relate to putting people in boxes/labelling people and making very strong assumptions?
As an introvert I'd argue those are basically just: "be empathic". That means you should not treat others in a way that annoys or demeans them – because you yourself would not like that either, right?
Empathy implies you can feel with others. Example: You are a man and you talk to a woman. Being empathic means you have a clear mental image of what it might feel like to be a woman and can thus avoid saying things that aren't funny, like sexist bullshit. Or you talk to a student/junior and remember what it felt like when you had no fucking clue and how shitty it was when the old greybeards would scoff at you, with empathy you can talk to people where they are instead of highlighting the difference between you and them.
Most communicative problems I have ever seen (aside from language barriers) could have been resolved by a little bit of empathy.
> Most communicative problems I have ever seen (aside from language barriers) could have been resolved by a little bit of empathy.
Empathy is usually an internal process. On it's own, it wont't resolve a communication problem.
What ends up affecting a communication problem are the external actions that we take based on our internal empathy calculus (assuming we haven't totally miscalculated). Those actions will vary significantly by person and context, assuming any action follows at all.
Empathy is the relatively easy part. Acting on that empathy in a way that doesn't come across as condescending, disengaged, presumptious, judgemental, awkward, or scripted, while also remaining true to yourself and upholding your personal values are the hard parts.
I suspect that books about this type of guide differ much depends on the country/reader.
Site is down
so much for my social skills :(
we'll have to get by with grunting
I think this guide is already failing people by assuming successfully initiated conversations and labeling it as "basic". If you have plenty of social contacts, that already warrants being considered "intermediate".
The really difficult things are maintaining good first impression and talking to (perceived) strangers. You know nothing about a person until you talk with that person, so what exactly are you supposed to do? There is a bootstrapping problem.
Classified ads are a good example. It's not like ebay, where you click a button and the delivered product is guaranteed to arrive a few days later. Instead you get a blank form of nothing, where you can write whatever you want and there is always the possibility of rejection. It's very much unlike any store you've ever visited, where money is king and the customer('s money) is always right.
hacker news hug of death
If that's the reason, I kinda wonder what kind of numbers we're talking about in this case.
Can text ever really teach you social skills? Aren't they, by definition, "social" and thus only obtainable through exposure and practice?
This applies to teaching anything ever; it's the difference between teaching the thing and teaching about the thing. It's a caveat to keep in mind, sure, but not much more.
Finally.
Ah yes, a very pertinent article for HN!
[dead]