I expect it’s possible to learn to successfully simulate social curiosity, but not if one only understands it at that superficial level.
Rather than simulating social curiosity, have you considered trying to develop such curiosity? For example, you might right now pick a social situation that’s coming up in the next few days, and set a five minute timer, and, during the next five minutes, write down as many questions as you can about one of the people who will be there. (“How is X’s job going? Why does he tell those stories—is it because he feels good about himself when people laugh? Because he feels awkward and doesn’t know what else to say? Simple habit? ….”)
Definitely should be carefully applied by those listed in the previous comment… after all, you don’t want to go to the complete opposite and turn into an obsessive, grilling another person about their private life.
I tend to find people don’t like that any more than no interest at all. :)
I’ve been able to turn non-social curiosity into good social interaction. Dale Carnegie says that if you want to be a good conversationalist...if you want people to like you… you need to talk about what the other person wants to talk about. And often the other person wants to talk about themselves, if only for a second. But, what happens if 2 Dale Carnegie followers talk? “Enough about me, lets talk about you”. “No no, enough about me, lets talk about you.”
I find a better application is, ask a question, or 2, and then rather than asking more questions, make a comment. Doesn’t have to be perfect. More knowledge (from basic-research-curiousity) gives you more comments you can make. What little thing do you know about what the other person just said? About fishing, or the university of x, or the story they just told. People don’t want to answer questions, they want to relate. “How’s the job going?” “Oh yeah I know what you mean...I had a boss who used to do the same thing.”
Obviously that can get too banal, which is why the basic-research-curiousity pays off: you can elevate the “we relate” by having something more to say, about things.
Rather than simulating social curiosity, have you considered trying to develop such curiosity? For example, you might right now pick a social situation that’s coming up in the next few days, and set a five minute timer, and, during the next five minutes, write down as many questions as you can about one of the people who will be there. (“How is X’s job going? Why does he tell those stories—is it because he feels good about himself when people laugh? Because he feels awkward and doesn’t know what else to say? Simple habit? ….”)
Good advice.
Definitely should be carefully applied by those listed in the previous comment… after all, you don’t want to go to the complete opposite and turn into an obsessive, grilling another person about their private life.
I tend to find people don’t like that any more than no interest at all. :)
I’ve been able to turn non-social curiosity into good social interaction. Dale Carnegie says that if you want to be a good conversationalist...if you want people to like you… you need to talk about what the other person wants to talk about. And often the other person wants to talk about themselves, if only for a second. But, what happens if 2 Dale Carnegie followers talk? “Enough about me, lets talk about you”. “No no, enough about me, lets talk about you.”
I find a better application is, ask a question, or 2, and then rather than asking more questions, make a comment. Doesn’t have to be perfect. More knowledge (from basic-research-curiousity) gives you more comments you can make. What little thing do you know about what the other person just said? About fishing, or the university of x, or the story they just told. People don’t want to answer questions, they want to relate. “How’s the job going?” “Oh yeah I know what you mean...I had a boss who used to do the same thing.”
Obviously that can get too banal, which is why the basic-research-curiousity pays off: you can elevate the “we relate” by having something more to say, about things.