Would people be interested in a description of someone with high-social skills failing in a social situation (getting kicked out of a house)?
I’m not sure it’s that relevant to rationality, but I think most humans (myself included!) are interested in hearing juicy gossip, especially if it features a popular trope such as “high status (but mildly disliked by the audience) person meets downfall”.
How about this division of labor: you tell us the story and we come up with some explanation for how it relates to rationality, probably involving evolutionary psychology.
He is not high status as such, although he possibly could be if he didn’t waste time being drunk.
Okay here goes the broad brush description of characters. Feel free to ask more questions to fill in details that you want.
Dramatis Personae
Mr G: Me. Tall scruffy geek. Takes little care of appearance. Tidy in social areas. Chats to everyone, remembers details of peoples lives, although forgets peoples names. Not particularly close (not facebook friends with any of the others). Doesn’t bring girls/friends home. Can tell a joke or make a humorous observation but not a master, can hold his own in banter though. Little evidence of social circle apart from occasional visits to friends far away. Accommodating to peoples niggles and competent at fixing stuff that needs fixing. Does a fair amount of house work, because it needs doing. Has never suggested going out with the others, but has gone out by himself to random things. Is often out doing work at uni when others are at home. Shares some food with others, occasionally.
Miss C: Assertive, short, fairly plump Canadian supply teacher. Is mocked by Mr S for canadianisms, especially when teaching the children that the British idiom is wrong. For example saying that learnt is not a word. Young, not very knowledgeable about current affairs/world. Boyfriend back home. Has smoked pot. Drinks and parties on the weekend, generally going out with friends from home. Facebook friends with the other 2 (I think). Fairly liberal. Came into the house a week before Mr G. Watches a lot of TV in the shared area. Has family and friends visit occasionally.
Miss B: Works in digital marketing (does stuff on managing virals). Dry sense of humour. Boyfriend occasionally comes to visit, boyfriend is teacher who wants to be a stand up comedian. Is away most weekends, visiting family or boyfriend. Gets on with everyone on a surface level. Fairly pretty although not a stunner. Can banter a bit, but not much. Plays up to the “ditzy” personae sometimes.
Favourite Family Guy character is Brian. Scared of spiders/insects, to the extent that she dreamt a giant spider was on her pillow and didn’t know it was a dream and shrieked (was investigated by Mr G to make sure there was nothing). Newest house mate by a couple of months. Probably a bit more conservative than the rest of the house.
Mr S: Self described cocky ex-skater. Well travelled. Older than the others. Takes care in his dress although not uber smart, has expensive trainers. Has had quite a few dates and 3 girlfriends of various lengths of time, in the 10 months I have been here. Fairly high quality girls, from the evidence I have seen. Talks to everyone. Witty, urbane. Generous with his food and drink.
Does some house work, makes sure everyone knows about it. Fairly emotional. He complains about Miss C not doing housework to Mr G, upon occasion. On one occasion when Mr G does not reciprocate in the complaints, he gets angry, but not in a serious way. Apologises the day after.
Self-identifies as geek of sorts to Mr G to try and sway Mr G on various points. Mr G less than enthused. Asks people how they stuff makes them feel.
His main problem is his drink and pot. He drinks himself to a stupor with almost clockwork regularity (he can be reliably zonked out on the living room sofa on a Sunday) and gets the munchies and steals food. He is always apologetic and replaces it when he does so and is confronted. Mr G doesn’t confront when he suspects food has gone missing, although Miss C seems to get most of the food stolen and is most confrontational.
Often forgets conversations he has had when drunk. Gets angry upon occasions and crashes around slamming doors. He doesn’t feel dangerous to Mr G at these points. Leaves the oven on with food in while asleep on said sofa. Miss B is worried by this behaviour and tells Mr G. Mr G not overly worried for himself, but can see her point.
The final straw that lead to being kicked out was when he was found walking around naked by Miss B in the kitchen. Miss C had tried to get him kicked out previously for eating food. Mr G was away.
He has lived in this flat for a year with other people and I don’t think his behaviour has changed, so why did this set of people get him kicked out, when others hadn’t? I’m guessing the moral of the story is don’t be an alcoholic in general. But some people put up with worse behaviour.
This description seems very British and I’m not quite clear on some of it. For instance, I had no idea what a strop is. Urban Dictionary defines it as sulking, being angry, or being in a bad mood.
Some of the other things seem like they would only make sense with more cultural context, specifically the emphasis on bantering and making witty remarks.
I wouldn’t say that this guy has great social skills, given his getting drunk and stealing food, slamming doors and walking around naked, and so forth. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.
As to why he got kicked out, I guess people finally got tired of the way he acted, or this group of people was less tolerant of it.
By social skills I meant what people with Aspergers lack naturally. Magnetism/charisma, etc. It is hard to get that across in a textual description. People with poor social skills here know not to get drunk and wander around naked, but can’t charm the pants off a pretty girl. The point of the story is that having charisma is in itself not a get out of jail free card that is sometimes described here.
Sorry for the british-ness. It is hard to talk about social situations without thinking in my native idiom. I’ll try and translate it tomorrow.
By social skills I meant what people with Aspergers lack naturally. Magnetism/charisma, etc. It is hard to get that across in a textual description. People with poor social skills here know not to get drunk and wander around naked, but can’t charm the pants off a pretty girl.
You’re conflating a few different things here. There’s seduction ability, which is its own unique set of skills (it’s very possible to be good at seduction but poor at social skills; some of the PUA gurus fall in this category). There’s the ability to pick up social nuances in real-time, which is what people with Aspergers tend to learn slower than others (though no one has this “naturally”; it has to be learned through experience). There’s knowledge of specific rules, like “don’t wander around naked”. And charisma or magnetism is essentially confidence and acting ability. These skillsets are all independent: you can be good at some and poor at others.
The point of the story is that having charisma is in itself not a get out of jail free card that is sometimes described here.
Well, of course not. For instance, if you punch someone in the face, they’ll get upset regardless of your social skills in other situations. What this guy did was similar (though perhaps less extreme).
It is hard to talk about social situations without thinking in my native idiom.
Understood, and thanks for writing that story; it was really interesting. The whole British way of thinking is foreign to this clueless American, and I’m curious about it. (I’m also confused by the suggestion that being Facebook friends is a measure of intimacy.)
You’re conflating a few different things here. There’s seduction ability, which is its own unique set of skills (it’s very possible to be good at seduction but poor at social skills; some of the PUA gurus fall in this category). There’s the ability to pick up social nuances in real-time, which is what people with Aspergers tend to learn slower than others (though no one has this “naturally”; it has to be learned through experience). There’s knowledge of specific rules, like “don’t wander around naked”. And charisma or magnetism is essentially confidence and acting ability. These skillsets are all independent: you can be good at some and poor at others.
Interesting, I wouldn’t have said that they were as independent as you make out. I’d say it is unusual to be confidant with good acting ability and not be able to read social nuances (how do you know how you should act?). And confidance is definately part of the PUA skillset. Apart from that I’d agree, there are different levels of skill.
When sober he was fairly good at everything. He would steer the conversations where he wanted, generally organise the flat to his liking and not do anything stupid like going around naked. If you looked at our interactions as a group, he would have appeared the Alpha.
His excuse for wandering around naked was that he thought he was alone and that he should have the right to go into the kitchen naked if he wanted to. I.e. he tried to brazen it out. That might give you some idea of his attitude, what he expected to get away with and that he had probably gotten away with it in the past.
Apart from the lack of common sense (when very drunk), I think his main problem was underestimating people or at least not being able to read them. He was too reliant on his feeling of being the Alpha to realise his position was tenuous. No one was relying upon the flat as their main social group, so no one cared about him being Alpha of that group.
Well, of course not. For instance, if you punch someone in the face, they’ll get upset regardless of your social skills in other situations. What this guy did was similar (though perhaps less extreme).
You might get upset but still not be able to do anything against the Guy. See Highschool.
(I’m also confused by the suggestion that being Facebook friends is a measure of intimacy.)
People use Facebook in a myriad of different ways. Some people friend everyone they come across, which means their friends lists gives little information. Mine is to keep an eye on the doings of people I care about. People I don’t care about just add noise. So mine is more informative than most. Mr S. is very promiscuous with over 700 friends, I’m not sure about the other two.
I just assumed that for the sake of brevity he covered the other aspects under “etc”. I would add in “intuitive aptitude for Machiavellian social politics”.
I’m not sure it’s that relevant to rationality, but I think most humans (myself included!) are interested in hearing juicy gossip, especially if it features a popular trope such as “high status (but mildly disliked by the audience) person meets downfall”.
How about this division of labor: you tell us the story and we come up with some explanation for how it relates to rationality, probably involving evolutionary psychology.
He is not high status as such, although he possibly could be if he didn’t waste time being drunk.
Okay here goes the broad brush description of characters. Feel free to ask more questions to fill in details that you want.
Dramatis Personae
Mr G: Me. Tall scruffy geek. Takes little care of appearance. Tidy in social areas. Chats to everyone, remembers details of peoples lives, although forgets peoples names. Not particularly close (not facebook friends with any of the others). Doesn’t bring girls/friends home. Can tell a joke or make a humorous observation but not a master, can hold his own in banter though. Little evidence of social circle apart from occasional visits to friends far away. Accommodating to peoples niggles and competent at fixing stuff that needs fixing. Does a fair amount of house work, because it needs doing. Has never suggested going out with the others, but has gone out by himself to random things. Is often out doing work at uni when others are at home. Shares some food with others, occasionally.
Miss C: Assertive, short, fairly plump Canadian supply teacher. Is mocked by Mr S for canadianisms, especially when teaching the children that the British idiom is wrong. For example saying that learnt is not a word. Young, not very knowledgeable about current affairs/world. Boyfriend back home. Has smoked pot. Drinks and parties on the weekend, generally going out with friends from home. Facebook friends with the other 2 (I think). Fairly liberal. Came into the house a week before Mr G. Watches a lot of TV in the shared area. Has family and friends visit occasionally.
Miss B: Works in digital marketing (does stuff on managing virals). Dry sense of humour. Boyfriend occasionally comes to visit, boyfriend is teacher who wants to be a stand up comedian. Is away most weekends, visiting family or boyfriend. Gets on with everyone on a surface level. Fairly pretty although not a stunner. Can banter a bit, but not much. Plays up to the “ditzy” personae sometimes.
Favourite Family Guy character is Brian. Scared of spiders/insects, to the extent that she dreamt a giant spider was on her pillow and didn’t know it was a dream and shrieked (was investigated by Mr G to make sure there was nothing). Newest house mate by a couple of months. Probably a bit more conservative than the rest of the house.
Mr S: Self described cocky ex-skater. Well travelled. Older than the others. Takes care in his dress although not uber smart, has expensive trainers. Has had quite a few dates and 3 girlfriends of various lengths of time, in the 10 months I have been here. Fairly high quality girls, from the evidence I have seen. Talks to everyone. Witty, urbane. Generous with his food and drink.
Does some house work, makes sure everyone knows about it. Fairly emotional. He complains about Miss C not doing housework to Mr G, upon occasion. On one occasion when Mr G does not reciprocate in the complaints, he gets angry, but not in a serious way. Apologises the day after.
Self-identifies as geek of sorts to Mr G to try and sway Mr G on various points. Mr G less than enthused. Asks people how they stuff makes them feel.
His main problem is his drink and pot. He drinks himself to a stupor with almost clockwork regularity (he can be reliably zonked out on the living room sofa on a Sunday) and gets the munchies and steals food. He is always apologetic and replaces it when he does so and is confronted. Mr G doesn’t confront when he suspects food has gone missing, although Miss C seems to get most of the food stolen and is most confrontational.
Often forgets conversations he has had when drunk. Gets angry upon occasions and crashes around slamming doors. He doesn’t feel dangerous to Mr G at these points. Leaves the oven on with food in while asleep on said sofa. Miss B is worried by this behaviour and tells Mr G. Mr G not overly worried for himself, but can see her point.
The final straw that lead to being kicked out was when he was found walking around naked by Miss B in the kitchen. Miss C had tried to get him kicked out previously for eating food. Mr G was away.
He has lived in this flat for a year with other people and I don’t think his behaviour has changed, so why did this set of people get him kicked out, when others hadn’t? I’m guessing the moral of the story is don’t be an alcoholic in general. But some people put up with worse behaviour.
This description seems very British and I’m not quite clear on some of it. For instance, I had no idea what a strop is. Urban Dictionary defines it as sulking, being angry, or being in a bad mood.
Some of the other things seem like they would only make sense with more cultural context, specifically the emphasis on bantering and making witty remarks.
I wouldn’t say that this guy has great social skills, given his getting drunk and stealing food, slamming doors and walking around naked, and so forth. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.
As to why he got kicked out, I guess people finally got tired of the way he acted, or this group of people was less tolerant of it.
By social skills I meant what people with Aspergers lack naturally. Magnetism/charisma, etc. It is hard to get that across in a textual description. People with poor social skills here know not to get drunk and wander around naked, but can’t charm the pants off a pretty girl. The point of the story is that having charisma is in itself not a get out of jail free card that is sometimes described here.
Sorry for the british-ness. It is hard to talk about social situations without thinking in my native idiom. I’ll try and translate it tomorrow.
You’re conflating a few different things here. There’s seduction ability, which is its own unique set of skills (it’s very possible to be good at seduction but poor at social skills; some of the PUA gurus fall in this category). There’s the ability to pick up social nuances in real-time, which is what people with Aspergers tend to learn slower than others (though no one has this “naturally”; it has to be learned through experience). There’s knowledge of specific rules, like “don’t wander around naked”. And charisma or magnetism is essentially confidence and acting ability. These skillsets are all independent: you can be good at some and poor at others.
Well, of course not. For instance, if you punch someone in the face, they’ll get upset regardless of your social skills in other situations. What this guy did was similar (though perhaps less extreme).
Understood, and thanks for writing that story; it was really interesting. The whole British way of thinking is foreign to this clueless American, and I’m curious about it. (I’m also confused by the suggestion that being Facebook friends is a measure of intimacy.)
Interesting, I wouldn’t have said that they were as independent as you make out. I’d say it is unusual to be confidant with good acting ability and not be able to read social nuances (how do you know how you should act?). And confidance is definately part of the PUA skillset. Apart from that I’d agree, there are different levels of skill.
When sober he was fairly good at everything. He would steer the conversations where he wanted, generally organise the flat to his liking and not do anything stupid like going around naked. If you looked at our interactions as a group, he would have appeared the Alpha.
His excuse for wandering around naked was that he thought he was alone and that he should have the right to go into the kitchen naked if he wanted to. I.e. he tried to brazen it out. That might give you some idea of his attitude, what he expected to get away with and that he had probably gotten away with it in the past.
Apart from the lack of common sense (when very drunk), I think his main problem was underestimating people or at least not being able to read them. He was too reliant on his feeling of being the Alpha to realise his position was tenuous. No one was relying upon the flat as their main social group, so no one cared about him being Alpha of that group.
You might get upset but still not be able to do anything against the Guy. See Highschool.
People use Facebook in a myriad of different ways. Some people friend everyone they come across, which means their friends lists gives little information. Mine is to keep an eye on the doings of people I care about. People I don’t care about just add noise. So mine is more informative than most. Mr S. is very promiscuous with over 700 friends, I’m not sure about the other two.
I just assumed that for the sake of brevity he covered the other aspects under “etc”. I would add in “intuitive aptitude for Machiavellian social politics”.
Do I correctly interpret this to say that both Miss C and Miss B goes out (drinking?) on the weekends, but not together?
Yup. Sorry, that wasn’t clear.