It seems like we do have some areas of agreement, and I’m going to focus on the areas where our perspectives are different.
I absolutely agree. But I don’t think it was necessarily good for him or for the people he encountered...
He seems to think his exploration had positive consequences for himself and for others, given that he has written this post. His perceptions may not be correct, but they are all we have to go on.
I can’t say what the effects of his behaviour were, are, or will be. But I can say that I would be very insulted if he had tried such tactics on me—it’s a belittling of my intelligence to expect me to not notice such blatantly obvious ploys. And in the context of relationships, it comes across as, in my opinion, being womanizing and disrespectful towards women. And as I’ve pointed out elsewhere it seems inconsistent for him to not care about their rationality.
Which tactics would you find insulting? Not talking about politics or programming? Maintaining emotional momentum? Displaying confident behavior? Changing topics in conversation by free-associating? Asking for a number while in a rush?
lukeprog observes the preferences of (a subset of) women, and attempts to self-modify in order to fulfill their (perceived) criteria. I’m having trouble seeing what the problem is, and how such a practice would disrespect women’s rationality.
And I think that’s the large difference. I have done similar things as well, and, for me they were incredibly destructive, and set me back several years in development of my social skills. And it wasn’t until I started analyzing the sources of my emotions that I became confident in myself and who I was. I discarded emotions that weren’t based in rational thought, and I accepted and embraced those that were.
I seems like a more cognitive approach was most helpful for you. For other people, a highly behavioral approach might be useful. For me, both have been useful.
I spent many years faking confidence and tiptoeing around social protocol, and I was miserable and horribly insecure. I still can’t imagine that ever being a positive experience, but I will accept the numerous people who have testified to it at their word that it was.
It’s complicated. Not all of my efforts to expand my personality have succeeded. I eventually do hit a limit of extraversion, for example, beyond which I feel fake and drained. So I do relate to what you are saying. Luckily, some of my attempts at changing my behavior have stuck, and also succeeded in changing my attitudes and sense of self. It was only by pushing my personality to its limits that I gained a sense of what it could do.
Perhaps it’s useful to note that all of lukeprog’s “tactics” look to me like normal socialization or extensions thereof?
Politics, religion, math, and programming are basically never the right subject matter when flirting.
Tailoring one’s subject matter to one’s audience is very normal. Avoiding esoteric or controversial topics with people one doesn’t know well is a simple logical extension of this. The “when flirting” qualifier is relevant in that it implies a new acquaintance; different heuristics apply when dealing with people one knows more about.
Keep up the emotional momentum. Don’t stay in the same stage of the conversation (rapport, storytelling, self-disclosure, etc.) for very long.
This is a fairly basic social skill. (By which I mean that it’s applicable everywhere, not that it’s trivial to learn. Possibly also noteworthy: The definition of ‘correct emotional momentum’ can vary from group to group and situation to situation.)
Almost every gesture or line is improved by adding a big smile.
Body language is important. Signaling that one is in a socially-interactive mode when that’s true is good practice.
’Hi. I’ve gotta run, but I think you’re cute so we should grab a coffee sometime” totally works when the girl is already attracted because my body language, fashion, and other signals have been optimized.
Nonverbal communication conveys a lot of information. Treating that communication as real is generally wise.
People rarely notice an abrupt change of subject if you say “Yeah, it’s just like when...” and then say something completely unrelated.
I’d question the assertion that people don’t notice these changes of topic, but this kind of behavior is quite normal in most real-time conversation contexts and will generally not be questioned unless it appears to be malicious.
Also, to make it perfectly clear: I’m not talking about flirting, dating, or any other romantic or pickup context with any of the above—I don’t have (or want; I’m asexual and a-romantic) enough experience to do so. I’m talking about normal, peer-to-peer socialization.
First and foremost, the shifting of conversational topics, I would find very insulting. If you can’t talk to me normally without desperately reaching for conversational topics, maybe we just shouldn’t be talking.
Secondly, I would probably list intentionally avoiding conversational topics like politics. If you’re not a blue or a green, I’d love to talk about politics with you. (And if you are a blue or a green, I don’t really want to talk to you at all...) And if you don’t like talking about politics, maybe we shouldn’t be together, if I do.
Third, is probably this business about “emotional momentum”. I had no idea what that even meant when I read it. I’m still not sure I do. I have never considered what “stage of conversation” I’m in. If I think of something that’s relevant, I say it. It generally works pretty well for me.
’Hi. I’ve gotta run, but I think you’re cute so we should grab a coffee sometime” totally works when the girl is already attracted because my body language, fashion, and other signals have been optimized.
I had no objection to the quote, but to the rest of it. The rest of it makes it seem like lukeprog’s only goal is sex, particularly the words “totally works” and “optimized”.
Ultimately conversation should flow, regardless of who you’re talking to. If it flows, you don’t need to worry about stilted rules like this, which is the primary source of my objection. I wouldn’t want to talk to someone constantly worrying about what to say next—it would seem very forced, I’m sure.
As a sidenote, and perhaps I’m alone in this and perhaps I’m not, it’s hard to tell—I am massively introverted. I don’t know if that is a source of difference or not (I would imagine most other LWers are as well) but I thought I’d throw it out there.
First and foremost, the shifting of conversational topics, I would find very insulting. If you can’t talk to me normally without desperately reaching for conversational topics, maybe we just shouldn’t be talking.
The technique described is generally used when one or both parties have run out of interesting things to say on the topic at hand—it’s a transitional technique. The interesting point is that it’s possible to transition to arbitrary topics rather than there having to be some logical connection between the two. I don’t see why you’d consider that ‘desperate reaching’, but suspect it has to do with the specific topics you’re imagining someone switching to. Does it seem less objectionable if you specifically imagine someone transitioning to an arbitrary but interesting and engaging topic?
Secondly, I would probably list intentionally avoiding conversational topics like politics. If you’re not a blue or a green, I’d love to talk about politics with you. (And if you are a blue or a green, I don’t really want to talk to you at all...) And if you don’t like talking about politics, maybe we shouldn’t be together, if I do.
This seems… odd, to me, as an objection. Do you really expect every one of your friends to share every one of your interests, and you to share every one of theirs? Or is it just “topics like politics” that you’re applying that expectation to? What do you mean by “topics like politics”, and why is that category special?
Third, is probably this business about “emotional momentum”. I had no idea what that even meant when I read it. I’m still not sure I do. I have never considered what “stage of conversation” I’m in. If I think of something that’s relevant, I say it. It generally works pretty well for me.
If I’m understanding lukeprog correctly, this refers to monitoring your conversational partner and switching topics or modes if they seem to be losing interest, though that’s a simplified description of the skill. I think this is also what you’re describing by ‘flow’, and—importantly—it doesn’t come naturally to everyone. To people to whom such skills don’t come naturally, or people trying to communicate about the skills, breaking them down into explicitly-described sub-skills as lukeprog did is often quite useful.
Does it seem less objectionable if you specifically imagine someone transitioning to an arbitrary but interesting and engaging topic?
No, not at all. I wouldn’t at all enjoy a conversation that went along the lines of “Yeah, the weather’s great outside, but I hear it’s supposed to rain tomorrow.” “Yeah, you know what that’s exactly like? Aumann’s Agreement Theorem”. That’s just absurd. Admittedly, that’s a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were “completely unrelated” as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
This seems… odd, to me, as an objection. Do you really expect every one of your friends to share every one of your interests, and you to share every one of theirs?
No, I don’t. And if the person I’m talking to doesn’t want to talk about politics, that’s fine. But I’m not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to—that’s leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence. And I mean any topic really, just politics and religion are the two quintessential examples of “impolite” topics.
Admittedly, that’s a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were “completely unrelated” as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
The problem with that example, as far as I can see, is that the transition is trying to force a level of engagement that hasn’t been established yet, which would fail even if the topic being transitioned to did have some logical connection to the weather. A better example: Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone’s cousin’s roommates’ sister’s wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann’s Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
But I’m not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to—that’s leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence.
Given that the topic being considered “impolite” implies that most people won’t like most possible conversations on the topic, no, it’s not based on no evidence—it’s just based on evidence about people-in-general or people-in-a-given-culture rather than a specific person in particular, which is a reasonable starting point in figuring out how to approach them. (Yes, this pattern-matches with the pronouns debate that comes up here from time to time. The significant difference is that female LWers are likely to object to being called by male pronouns, whereas politics-liking conversationalists are unlikely to object to their conversational partners bringing up non-politics topics of conversation. The parallel of having to actually gather information about people to interact optimally with them is accurate, though.)
Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone’s cousin’s roommates’ sister’s wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann’s Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
But if you used the phrase “That’s exactly like”, I think it would sound equally forced. Or at least it would to me.
Given that the topic being considered “impolite” implies that most people won’t like most possible conversations on the topic,
I don’t think it does. People generally love it if you agree with them—it’s impolite because you don’t always agree. Many people are happy to drone on for hours about their political beliefs, which is what makes it impolite. If you can be respectful about politics, I see no reason not to bring it up (if you want to). And if the other person can’t be respectful, then that gives you (in my book, what would be) a significant reason to not pursue a relationship with that person.
But if you used the phrase “That’s exactly like”, I think it would sound equally forced.
At this point I think it’s a matter of empirical testing—meaning, in this case, observing people, since the question is about what people do in the course of normal conversations.
People generally love it if you agree with them—it’s impolite because you don’t always agree.
This is a significant part of why I said “most possible conversations”. I would guess that it’s possible to have a political conversation with most people that they’ll enjoy—but reliably doing so takes more information than you’ll generally have about someone you just met or are in the process of meeting.
It seems like we do have some areas of agreement, and I’m going to focus on the areas where our perspectives are different.
He seems to think his exploration had positive consequences for himself and for others, given that he has written this post. His perceptions may not be correct, but they are all we have to go on.
Which tactics would you find insulting? Not talking about politics or programming? Maintaining emotional momentum? Displaying confident behavior? Changing topics in conversation by free-associating? Asking for a number while in a rush?
lukeprog observes the preferences of (a subset of) women, and attempts to self-modify in order to fulfill their (perceived) criteria. I’m having trouble seeing what the problem is, and how such a practice would disrespect women’s rationality.
I seems like a more cognitive approach was most helpful for you. For other people, a highly behavioral approach might be useful. For me, both have been useful.
It’s complicated. Not all of my efforts to expand my personality have succeeded. I eventually do hit a limit of extraversion, for example, beyond which I feel fake and drained. So I do relate to what you are saying. Luckily, some of my attempts at changing my behavior have stuck, and also succeeded in changing my attitudes and sense of self. It was only by pushing my personality to its limits that I gained a sense of what it could do.
Perhaps it’s useful to note that all of lukeprog’s “tactics” look to me like normal socialization or extensions thereof?
Tailoring one’s subject matter to one’s audience is very normal. Avoiding esoteric or controversial topics with people one doesn’t know well is a simple logical extension of this. The “when flirting” qualifier is relevant in that it implies a new acquaintance; different heuristics apply when dealing with people one knows more about.
This is a fairly basic social skill. (By which I mean that it’s applicable everywhere, not that it’s trivial to learn. Possibly also noteworthy: The definition of ‘correct emotional momentum’ can vary from group to group and situation to situation.)
Body language is important. Signaling that one is in a socially-interactive mode when that’s true is good practice.
Nonverbal communication conveys a lot of information. Treating that communication as real is generally wise.
I’d question the assertion that people don’t notice these changes of topic, but this kind of behavior is quite normal in most real-time conversation contexts and will generally not be questioned unless it appears to be malicious.
Also, to make it perfectly clear: I’m not talking about flirting, dating, or any other romantic or pickup context with any of the above—I don’t have (or want; I’m asexual and a-romantic) enough experience to do so. I’m talking about normal, peer-to-peer socialization.
I think that’s exactly what we’re discussing—whether or not they are “normal socialization or extensions thereof”.
First and foremost, the shifting of conversational topics, I would find very insulting. If you can’t talk to me normally without desperately reaching for conversational topics, maybe we just shouldn’t be talking.
Secondly, I would probably list intentionally avoiding conversational topics like politics. If you’re not a blue or a green, I’d love to talk about politics with you. (And if you are a blue or a green, I don’t really want to talk to you at all...) And if you don’t like talking about politics, maybe we shouldn’t be together, if I do.
Third, is probably this business about “emotional momentum”. I had no idea what that even meant when I read it. I’m still not sure I do. I have never considered what “stage of conversation” I’m in. If I think of something that’s relevant, I say it. It generally works pretty well for me.
I had no objection to the quote, but to the rest of it. The rest of it makes it seem like lukeprog’s only goal is sex, particularly the words “totally works” and “optimized”.
Ultimately conversation should flow, regardless of who you’re talking to. If it flows, you don’t need to worry about stilted rules like this, which is the primary source of my objection. I wouldn’t want to talk to someone constantly worrying about what to say next—it would seem very forced, I’m sure.
As a sidenote, and perhaps I’m alone in this and perhaps I’m not, it’s hard to tell—I am massively introverted. I don’t know if that is a source of difference or not (I would imagine most other LWers are as well) but I thought I’d throw it out there.
The technique described is generally used when one or both parties have run out of interesting things to say on the topic at hand—it’s a transitional technique. The interesting point is that it’s possible to transition to arbitrary topics rather than there having to be some logical connection between the two. I don’t see why you’d consider that ‘desperate reaching’, but suspect it has to do with the specific topics you’re imagining someone switching to. Does it seem less objectionable if you specifically imagine someone transitioning to an arbitrary but interesting and engaging topic?
This seems… odd, to me, as an objection. Do you really expect every one of your friends to share every one of your interests, and you to share every one of theirs? Or is it just “topics like politics” that you’re applying that expectation to? What do you mean by “topics like politics”, and why is that category special?
If I’m understanding lukeprog correctly, this refers to monitoring your conversational partner and switching topics or modes if they seem to be losing interest, though that’s a simplified description of the skill. I think this is also what you’re describing by ‘flow’, and—importantly—it doesn’t come naturally to everyone. To people to whom such skills don’t come naturally, or people trying to communicate about the skills, breaking them down into explicitly-described sub-skills as lukeprog did is often quite useful.
No, not at all. I wouldn’t at all enjoy a conversation that went along the lines of “Yeah, the weather’s great outside, but I hear it’s supposed to rain tomorrow.” “Yeah, you know what that’s exactly like? Aumann’s Agreement Theorem”. That’s just absurd. Admittedly, that’s a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were “completely unrelated” as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
No, I don’t. And if the person I’m talking to doesn’t want to talk about politics, that’s fine. But I’m not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to—that’s leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence. And I mean any topic really, just politics and religion are the two quintessential examples of “impolite” topics.
The problem with that example, as far as I can see, is that the transition is trying to force a level of engagement that hasn’t been established yet, which would fail even if the topic being transitioned to did have some logical connection to the weather. A better example: Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone’s cousin’s roommates’ sister’s wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann’s Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
Given that the topic being considered “impolite” implies that most people won’t like most possible conversations on the topic, no, it’s not based on no evidence—it’s just based on evidence about people-in-general or people-in-a-given-culture rather than a specific person in particular, which is a reasonable starting point in figuring out how to approach them. (Yes, this pattern-matches with the pronouns debate that comes up here from time to time. The significant difference is that female LWers are likely to object to being called by male pronouns, whereas politics-liking conversationalists are unlikely to object to their conversational partners bringing up non-politics topics of conversation. The parallel of having to actually gather information about people to interact optimally with them is accurate, though.)
But if you used the phrase “That’s exactly like”, I think it would sound equally forced. Or at least it would to me.
I don’t think it does. People generally love it if you agree with them—it’s impolite because you don’t always agree. Many people are happy to drone on for hours about their political beliefs, which is what makes it impolite. If you can be respectful about politics, I see no reason not to bring it up (if you want to). And if the other person can’t be respectful, then that gives you (in my book, what would be) a significant reason to not pursue a relationship with that person.
At this point I think it’s a matter of empirical testing—meaning, in this case, observing people, since the question is about what people do in the course of normal conversations.
This is a significant part of why I said “most possible conversations”. I would guess that it’s possible to have a political conversation with most people that they’ll enjoy—but reliably doing so takes more information than you’ll generally have about someone you just met or are in the process of meeting.