This is another question that may lack a simple answer, and indeed there is a good chance that this is simply a wrong question in the first place.
Background: So going by LW and indeed much of the rest of the internet it seems that speaking to arbitrary strangers in public is in fact not in general considered creepy and unacceptable (which makes this a case where I would have done better with the typical mind heuristic, as opposed to what I guess is some sort of version of Postel’s Law, as I am not myself in general creeped out when others approach me).
Now much has been said on this topic here already—I can’t find the thread right now but I recall reading, e.g., don’t do this in enclosed spaces if you’re new to this (leave the other person a (literal) line of retreat). And how isn’t something I think I have a problem with either, nor am I worried that I can’t tell when people want me to go away.
What I am wondering is—well, regardless of the above, there do seem to be certain spaces which, though public, people have some expectation of privacy in. (I.e. they would consider other people approaching them creepy.) So what I am wondering is how can I distinguish those spaces with this expectation from those without. I have been basically erring on the side of caution by treating all public spaces as the former when I don’t have good reason otherwise.
Of course I suspect this may be a wrong question because I’m not certain the suppositions I’m putting into it are correct; in particular I’m suspecting I may get the response “you need to learn to judge people, not spaces, better”. But if it is in fact a wrong question any help in righting it would be appreciated.
Related—I originally thought of it as the same question, but now I realize it may not be—is the question of, in what spaces is it OK to simply butt in if I hear a bunch of people talking about something interesting? (Again this is something I currently don’t do...) On the internet and at parties are two examples where this seems to be always OK, but I’m pretty certain this doesn’t apply in general. I suspect this may also be a wrong question for reasons similar to above.
In the public space in question, are you more likely to find books or alcohol?
Pretty much any venue with alcohol is going to be a socially facilitating venue, whereas anywhere people take books is going to be a venue where they don’t expect to be disturbed.
In the public space in question, are you more likely to find books or alcohol?
I recommend socializing in book stores, libraries and outside classrooms. It will not always be appropriate but you can learn what sort of people will open to talking with practice.
I’d agree with all these suggestions. A more discerning rule of thumb might be “are you more likely to find people consuming books or consuming alcohol?”
It’s probably also reasonably safe to assume that the typical LWer would prefer to talk with someone over a revealed mutual interest, rather than talking to someone after deadening their selectivity with booze, so places that are about books, but not where people read them, are likely to be good haunts for talking to strangers.
I have heard it suggested that the world would be a nicer place if there were bookstores in which one could simply order a beer, the same way one can today order a coffee.
(It should be noted that the ‘order a coffee’ thing is only a decade or two old.)
OK, to be honest, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding this thread. Find people drinking in bookstores, libraries? I’m confused. (In school buildings, certainly possible, if we’re talking about parties in grad student offices, but then that falls into a case where things seem pretty clear, and I’m only likely to be around if I know some people anyway.)
Oh, pardon me. That was not particularly a serious recommendation. At least, not one that is likely to become relevant all that often. I was mostly being lighthearted so as to signal rapport with sixes as opposed to complete disagreement.
I have been basically erring on the side of caution by treating all public spaces as the former when I don’t have good reason otherwise.
If, as it sounds, you would learn from any mistakes, and if you’re somewhere populous enough that a randomly selected person’s opinion of you doesn’t matter, I doubt that imposing this restriction on yourself is right, or benefits others more than it costs you. You’re allowed to briefly creep people out by mistake in order to learn useful things and reap the mutual benefits of non-creepy interactions.
what I guess is some sort of version of Postel’s Law
Where do you think the “be conservative in what you do” is coming from in your case?
Hm, this sounds like good way of thinking about it. I already use this principle, but I had not thought it to apply it to such cases.
To clarify, I think I may have been thinking about it in the form of “I’m not likely to interact with these people”, rather than “I’m not likely to interact with these people again.” (Which raises the question of what if you are likely to encounter them again because you often encounter them in the same place. I suppose this still falls under “one random person, their opinion doesn’t matter”; it’s just going to take a bit of training to make myself think of someone I can already identify as a random.)
If, as it sounds, you would learn from any mistakes, and if you’re somewhere populous enough that a randomly selected person’s opinion of you doesn’t matter, I doubt that imposing this restriction on yourself is right
Agree, and with added emphasis! An excellent general social policy.
Perhaps I should further specify just what sort of spaces I’m clear and unclear on. (All “maybe”s, “probably”s refer to my own uncertainty, of course—for simplicity I’m doing writing this as if I hadn’t read any of the cousin posts yet.) The examples listed here are whatever I think of, mostly relevant ones but not all—I don’t think there’s a zoo anywhere around here and I haven’t been to one in quite some time, but the example occurred to me while I was writing this so I threw it in. I expect I’m right about the things I’m certain of but should that not be the case corrections would be appreciated!
Definitely OK to approach people: “Private public spaces”—anywhere where a person you don’t know can be assumed to be a friend of a friend—small parties, common rooms in dorms or co-op houses
OK to join existing conversations, maybe not OK to approach people initially: “Purposed public spaces”—anywhere where a person you don’t know can be assumed to share a common interest—a common room in a school department building, e.g. Game stores probably fit here too. Also probably competitions of any sort.
Probably OK but currently avoided by me: Outside—on the street, on the quad, in the park. Here the location doesn’t let you infer much of anything. (Unless something unusual is occurring, then clearly OK as people gather around it.)
???: Fast-food places or food courts. Non-quiet spaces where people go to get work done (but which are too general to fall under #2.) Zoos, museums, other similar places. Bookstores.
Probably not OK: Libraries.
Definitely not OK: Anywhere where you shouldn’t be talking in the first place. Most restaurants.
Again, thanks! The sibling posts have already clarified things some.
My suggestion: take a crash course in etiquette by going to another city nearby, and then spend a few days walking around asking questions, or inviting people to do stuff with you, etc. Condition yourself to get used to the occasional weird look, learn what you can get away with, and possibly make friends with people you would otherwise never meet.
If all else fails, drive out of the city and pretend the entire thing never happened. Or you will get some amusing stories to share with me when you get back.
How can you lose?
I am only partly joking, my social skills are so mediocre I have seriously considered doing exactly this at some point. I might throw in some speed dating as well for good measure.
A current example is my temporary move to Boston/Cambridge. I’ve walked around asking random strangers questions such as “If you could live anywhere in Boston, where would you live?”
I’ve received great advice, and made a few friendships and event invites from doing so!
I can’t tell if people actually don’t care or if they are just oblivious, but I hate when people try to strike up a conversation while I’m using a public toilet. Bad when it’s a urinal, worse when it’s a stall. Maybe this falls under “spaces where people go to get work done”?
In ambiguous environments, it is best to determine ok-ness on the basis of the people.
Good situations:
You are both doing the same thing—looking at the same genre of books in a bookstore, the same exhibit in a museum or zoo, both walking dogs in a park etc. This makes it easier to talk as you already have one thing in common and you can comment on that to see if they are receptive to conversation.
Something unusual happens—a delay on public transport, something wacky is going on in the quad etc
If you mean quad as in university, you already have a thing in common—you’re at the same university. It is likely to be okay to strike up a conversation.
They’re waiting for something. In a queue or waiting for public transport etc—may be bored
They’re having a cigarette—they probably have time for a quick chat and if you smoke too there’s a kind of unspoken thing with smokers where they will have a chat
Presence of alcohol but not a restaurant
Bad signs:
Person is wearing headphones or reading—they are busy and unlikely to want to talk
They are a woman under 40-ish and you are a dude: potential difficulties, see below.
-
So there is a thing with a guy approaching a strange woman—she is likely to inductively infer that you are not just after a friendly chat. The best thing to do is use caution and watch for signals that she doesn’t want to be approached and be ready to back off if your intentions are misinterpreted. A good thing to do here is to make sure that it is immediately obvious that you are talking about something that is not her—comment on your shared situation ahead of saying anything like ‘hello’ or ‘how you doing’. Commenting on the books or the museum exhibit or something like that lets her know that you’re looking at that, not her tits.
“Highly variable” is not particularly helpful but I suppose if it’s true then there might not be much more to say.
Regarding variability:
Are you in a section of the library where talking is forbidden? Probably don’t talk there unless you wish to flaunt rulebreaking.
Don’t interrupt people when they are thoroughly engrossed in reading a book or look like they are fully focussed on getting their assignment finished by 5:30. Do talk to people if they look more relaxed or generally not busy.
“Obvious” kind of stuff, for a suitable value of obvious. (Also ‘obvious’ is that you could probably talk to even the busy folks if you are particularly charming or appear high status. That’s how social rules work.)
The “don’t” part was pretty obvious to me, and generalizes to other places, the “do” part was not. :) I would have assumed people in libraries probably want to be left alone.
I spend a fair amount of my time off work either on public transportation or in coffee shops, and have found that how receptive people are to starting conversations varies widely within these settings.
On public transportation, there are observations one can make which can aid with determining whether someone is open to conversation. If they are already engaged in conversation with another passenger and appear either happy or lost, it is more often appropriate (people who are happy tend to have farther to go on their mood spectrum to get to creeped out or annoyed, as well as sometimes, as with the people I befriended a couple weeks ago, being in the mood to share their happiness with others, and people who are lost generally appreciate direction or at least a clarification of where they are on the map). A person confined to the seat next to you is less likely to be happy about a conversation, as they will feel they have less of an exit than, say, in a section where all seats face a middle aisle, meaning the area in which the conversation takes place is felt to be larger. In my experience, few people like to start conversations on their morning commute. So the important factors which determine whether it is appropriate to speak to someone on public transportation are time of day, physical position, and mood.
Coffee shops follow similar guidelines: it is often appropriate to chime in to existing conversations (as long as the conversation is not romantic or argumentative in nature). When a person might be forced by lack of seating to share your table, it is not appropriate to start a conversation if both of you have laptops, as you can be reasonably expected to be engaged with other people or projects. If the other person does not have a laptop or other electronic device with which they are engaged, it is generally appropriate to start a conversation.
I have found coffee shops environments where it is sometimes received well to butt in to interesting conversations. This has led to a few rebuffs, but also some highly interesting conversations. When people were gathered in the coffee shop for a purpose, such as a poetry reading, there was a significantly higher proportion of interesting conversations to rebuffs.
Public transit talkiness varies a lot by city. In Boston, it’s minimal. I understand in other cities, conversation is much more normal.
It’s my experience as a young woman that the only people who try to talk to me on public transit are men. If you’re a man, know that young women you try to talk to are probably going to assume you’re sketchy because they’ve been approached by so many other sketchy men before.
I veto talking to anyone who is reading. A possible exception might be if you’ve read what they’re reading and ask their opinion of it, or similar.
An anecdote: I was once reading Prattchett in a trolley-bus, and the ticket seller, a young man, exclaimed ‘Oh! You read Prattchett in the original!‘, and I was like, shit, he’s after my book and said ‘Yes,’ in an uninviting voice, and he went on his way…
…and I still regret not taking the time to talk to him.:)
I have the same issue, and I personally think it’s stupid (as in, in what way is talking to a stranger in public weird?). Thinking it’s stupid doesn’t make it much easier to overcome my own inhibitions about it, but it is somewhere to start.
I think tact is the key. Interrupt as politely as you can, and gauge their reactions when you do. If it is clear they are not interested in your input, then turn around and leave them alone. No harm, no foul. If you have something to contribute, though, and the individuals weren’t specifically seeking a private conversation, then they will probably be interested in what you have to contribute.
This reminds me of a recent episode of the Ricky Gervais Show (basically Ricky and his friend make fun of another friend of theirs the whole time, funny but it gets old), where one of the hosts went swimming, noticed the guy in the lane next to him had an excellent front crawl (which the host has always struggled with) and asked the guy if he could give him some tips. Ricky’s response was “Oh god, you didn’t! Why would you do that?!” My thought the whole time was why in the world is that wrong? If the guy isn’t interested he’ll say no, and that will be it. If he is willing to help out a fellow swimmer then he will, and they may become friends over it. Where is the loss for anybody there?
I have a half dozen friends now that I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t done something very similar a couple years ago, at a swimming pool too, no less. I simply started talking to the lifeguard before and I after I swam. Not quite as out of the blue as the Gervais Show co-host, but it was similar.
Still, some people find it rude. I don’t for the life of me understand why, except for when they are clearly having (or are attempting to have) a private conversation, or talking about a personal. Otherwise, where is the harm? And really, the risk for me personally is extremely low. So some stranger thinks I’m odd, so what? Most people are odd in some way, friendliness is far from the worst odd trait you could have.
Strangers are a potential threat. So when a stranger comes up to you and initiates a conversation, there’s some reason to be on your guard.
This is combined with basic etiquette. If someone makes a small request, it is considered rude to refuse. The problem here is that creepy weird dangerous strangers can take advantage of this fact by making a small request, which then makes you feel obligated to comply. So now a complete stranger, who may be dangerous, has ensnared you. You’re now doing something that he asked, instead of something that you want to do. And he can keep you dancing to his tune by making more small requests. So if you follow the rules of etiquette, a complete stranger, possibly dangerous, can monopolize you for a significant length of time.
I see this happen all the time with telemarketers. The phone will ring. Somebody will answer it. Then they’ll be at the phone for a long time, maybe half a minute maybe a couple of minutes. And it turns out that it was a telemarketer, and the reason the person stayed at the phone for a long time was that he just couldn’t think of a polite way to end the conversation. You go ahead and try it. If you try to disengage, the telemarketer has a scripted response ready which cancels your attempt.
For my part, I’m not trapped by telemarketers. But I simply hang up. I say “no thanks”, and the telemarketer goes on to the corresponding point in his script, and I simply hang up on him while he’s in the middle of a sentence. That’s rude. But I do it, because there are no personal repercussions for me in doing it.
Being rude to a stranger face to face is not as easy to do. If you’re rude to someone, they might get angry, and one thing might lead to another. So it’s easy to hang up on telemarketers (for me, but importantly, not for everyone) but not so easy to “hang up” on a stranger right in front of you. For this reason, being approached by a stranger represents a more serious potential problem, a social trap that may be more difficult to get out of.
So what do you do? There are plenty of ways to initiate a conversation. One is to be already with somebody. If you’re not alone, if you already have a conversational partner, and if you’re deep in conversation with them, then you are obviously less in need of company, so the possibility that you might try to trap a stranger into a conversation is correspondingly reduced. Another method is to get the other person to initiate the exchange.
The thing to do with telemarketers, I have learned, is not to immediately hang up.
You just let them get to what they want to sell you, then say, loudly but politely and without a pause for them to butt in, something like “Let me stop you there, [name], I’m afraid I’m not interested, but thank you very much for calling.” If they don’t back down, THEN summarily hang up.
I prefer this to simply hanging up because doing the latter always makes me feel bad for several minutes afterward for having been rude to somebody who is, after all, trying to make a living.
The thing to do with telemarketers, I have learned, is not to immediately hang up.
No, it really is to hang up.
I prefer this to simply hanging up because doing the latter always makes me feel bad for several minutes afterward for having been rude to somebody who is, after all, trying to make a living.
Your emotions seem to be doing both you and the telemarketers a disservice—perhaps due to an instinctive misunderstanding of what kind of social transaction is taking place. The telemarketer is not socially vulnerable and nor are you in a position where perception will have future consequences. They also don’t WANT to have an extended positive interaction that has no chance of success. Wasting five minutes on a mark that has no chance of giving a commission is strictly worse than an instant hang up. Your instincts are right that they are “after all, just trying to make a living” and you are just getting in their way.
I’m not saying it is necessarily worth retraining your emotional attachments in this case. You seem to attach pride to the act of wasting telemarketer time and guilt to the act of hanging up. This, combined with assertiveness practice you get and the cost of retraining yourself may mean that it is better to stay in the behavioral local minima.
My own attitude is that time spent talking to me is time they aren’t spending making a sale, so getting off the phone is the nicest thing I can do for them under the highly constrained circumstances. So as soon as I recognize them as telemarketers, I politely say “Sorry, but I’m really not interested; have a good day” and hang up, without waiting for them to do anything in particular.
I disagree that strangers as a potential threat is one of the driving motivators for this practice. It may be a rationalization for it, but it is not a natural position to take.
In sparsely populated areas, where strangers are less frequent, strangers are often assumed to be friendly. People are still wary, of course, because there is always the possibility that a stranger is dangerous, but this is not a particularly strong reason to avoid them completely. The occasions where this seems to not be true are when individuals want nothing to do with anybody new, regardless of who they are or where they come from or what potential threat they might be (i.e. the old man with the “trespassers shot on sight” signs posted doesn’t want anything to do with anybody).
In sparsely populated areas people will often take random strangers in need into their home for a night or two, far more than any small request the average stranger in a city might make, yet the people in the sparsely populated areas don’t seem particularly put off by this.
Your second point I think hits closer to the mark. People believe it is rude to say no, and so seek to avoid situations where they can be trapped into small requests like you mentioned. Instead of learning to say “no, sorry”, or “I’m sorry but this is a private conversation”, we ostracize those who are friendly (a really sad state of affairs common to any large-ish city).
But I simply hang up. I say “no thanks”, and the telemarketer goes on to the corresponding point in his script, and I simply hang up on him while he’s in the middle of a sentence. That’s rude.
This I disagree that this is rude. It is not rude for you to hang up on him after you decline his offer outright and he disregards you. That is extremely rude of him to do so. He is required to continue based on the nature of his job, but it is still rude. Taking his rudeness onto yourself is wrong.
It may be polite to oblige small requests, but it is not particularly impolite to decline them. You are not beholden to strangers, and there is nothing in the rules of etiquette to make you so.
This I think is also one of the major problems with people using a cell phone in inappropriate places. People seem to think it is rude to not answer the phone, even when it would be incredibly rude to those around you to do so. It’s a conflict and most people seem to choose the caller on the cell phone for some bizarre reason, even when it isn’t likely to be any kind of emergency.
You are talking about what ought to be. I am describing what is—how people think and behave. What we can observe is that many people have a great deal of difficulty getting off the phone when a telemarketer calls. The reason, I think, is clear: they are reluctant to end the conversation unless the other person lets them go, because this is conversational etiquette. That’s why it’s difficult. You saying that it ought not be difficult isn’t a description, it’s an exhortation. You’re talking in exhortatory/advisory mode when saying “I disagree that this is rude”. I’m talking in descriptive mode: ending a conversation when the other party has not let go violates the etiquette that many people have thoroughly internalized. It doesn’t matter that some alternative etiquette would be superior if analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint. The one people have internalized is the one that produces the behavior.
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won’t shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers. Though people want nothing better than for the bore to shut up and let them get on with their day, they stay and pretend to listen to the bore until the bore is done talking, which may not be for a long time. Again, it doesn’t matter that, analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint, the optimal behavior is to disengage. I’m describing, not advising. My advice is to cut them short, but that is neither here nor there.
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won’t shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers.
Of course that is true, and it is not at all what I was advocating. And you’re right that suggesting people learn to say “no” is an exhortation. It was also quite beside the original point (though I did bring it up first, certainly).
The point is that politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude. Neither is asking a question. It can certainly become so if you ignore the hints to stop, but it does not start out that way.
I also doubt the bore enjoys boring people, so getting irritated at him when you aren’t willing to tell him to stop seems pretty inconsiderate to me.
politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude
I’m sure they like to think they’re entertaining. Which, ironically, incentivises their investing very little in finding out they actually are. I honestly would expect someone to react pretty badly to being told or hinted at that they’re abusing your patience—and I think that’s why people get pissed off with such people. There’s little option to exit the conversation properly.
IME, bores tend to just find themselves with fewer and fewer friends as time goes on - often without ever finding out why. Because how can you tell them? Costs you social points for dubious gain.
I agree that the usual politeness rules don’t apply with telemarketers. I go with “No” or “No, thank you” and hang up.
This is actually relatively polite, not just compared to yelling at them, but also in comparison to keeping the conversation going (some people do this deliberately) when the telemarketer is certainly not going to make a sale.
This reminds me of a story I heard of a comedian who really put the screws to a telemarketer.
The comedian pretended to be a detective investigating a homicide when the telemarketer called, and started grilling him about his relationship with the deceased (i.e. the comedian). He even went so far as to find out what city and office building the guy worked at, and told him not to move because local police would soon be on their way to pick him up for questioning.
It was hilarious, but incredibly mean. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the telemarketer found himself a new job as soon as possible after that.
This is my strategy: when entering any space, I call attention to my arrival by loudly making some comment to either the group in general, someone I know, or anyone who looks friendly. Obviously, this works best in familiar settings, maxing out its fitness in, say, your own home. (“Honey! I’m home!”) I find, however, that it works virtually anywhere that isn’t supposed to be quiet. People who want to be social will smile and engage you.
In places like bars, cafes, or restaurants where this might be taken as obnoxious, tone it down, but feel free to speak to anyone around you. Most people are amenable to passing comments at the very least.
Say you go into Starbucks and there’s a long line of customers waiting to order a drink. Approach the end of the line and go “Whoah, long line!”. Chances are, you’ll get someone’s attention. People will turn around and look at you. When they do, make eye contact and say “We’re gonna be here a while!” or something like that. You’re immediately building rapport by referencing a shared context, as well as broadcasting your own confidence and willingness to socialize. It works great.
A more difficult scenario, but still quite doable, is a bookstore. Find someone reading a particular book or type of book, or looking through a certain section, and engage them on it. “Hey, good book!” They’re looking through the psychology section? Say “Psshh, Descartes. What did HE know?” This sort of thing will elicit a smile from almost anyone. The important thing is to not LOOK awkward, even though you may feel awkward.
Yes, this approach is cheesy. And some people may find you annoying. But those are people who are likely annoyed with life in general. Overall, you can generate a lot of positive results this way. If you want to generate maximum socialization, be THAT guy.
Also, it might be better to avoid addressing people in places where a lot of conversations go either between people-who-know-each-other or between drunk people and the people near to them. (In my case, it is a bus stop or the bus.) People-who-know-each-other (for example, by virtue of taking the same bus every day) might just think ‘ooh, another one’, without even going on to a noun.
This is another question that may lack a simple answer, and indeed there is a good chance that this is simply a wrong question in the first place.
Background: So going by LW and indeed much of the rest of the internet it seems that speaking to arbitrary strangers in public is in fact not in general considered creepy and unacceptable (which makes this a case where I would have done better with the typical mind heuristic, as opposed to what I guess is some sort of version of Postel’s Law, as I am not myself in general creeped out when others approach me).
Now much has been said on this topic here already—I can’t find the thread right now but I recall reading, e.g., don’t do this in enclosed spaces if you’re new to this (leave the other person a (literal) line of retreat). And how isn’t something I think I have a problem with either, nor am I worried that I can’t tell when people want me to go away.
What I am wondering is—well, regardless of the above, there do seem to be certain spaces which, though public, people have some expectation of privacy in. (I.e. they would consider other people approaching them creepy.) So what I am wondering is how can I distinguish those spaces with this expectation from those without. I have been basically erring on the side of caution by treating all public spaces as the former when I don’t have good reason otherwise.
Of course I suspect this may be a wrong question because I’m not certain the suppositions I’m putting into it are correct; in particular I’m suspecting I may get the response “you need to learn to judge people, not spaces, better”. But if it is in fact a wrong question any help in righting it would be appreciated.
Related—I originally thought of it as the same question, but now I realize it may not be—is the question of, in what spaces is it OK to simply butt in if I hear a bunch of people talking about something interesting? (Again this is something I currently don’t do...) On the internet and at parties are two examples where this seems to be always OK, but I’m pretty certain this doesn’t apply in general. I suspect this may also be a wrong question for reasons similar to above.
In the public space in question, are you more likely to find books or alcohol?
Pretty much any venue with alcohol is going to be a socially facilitating venue, whereas anywhere people take books is going to be a venue where they don’t expect to be disturbed.
I recommend socializing in book stores, libraries and outside classrooms. It will not always be appropriate but you can learn what sort of people will open to talking with practice.
I’d agree with all these suggestions. A more discerning rule of thumb might be “are you more likely to find people consuming books or consuming alcohol?”
It’s probably also reasonably safe to assume that the typical LWer would prefer to talk with someone over a revealed mutual interest, rather than talking to someone after deadening their selectivity with booze, so places that are about books, but not where people read them, are likely to be good haunts for talking to strangers.
Best yet, find the people consuming alcohol in the place where you find lots of books. They’re bound to be up for a chat.
I have heard it suggested that the world would be a nicer place if there were bookstores in which one could simply order a beer, the same way one can today order a coffee.
(It should be noted that the ‘order a coffee’ thing is only a decade or two old.)
OK, to be honest, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding this thread. Find people drinking in bookstores, libraries? I’m confused. (In school buildings, certainly possible, if we’re talking about parties in grad student offices, but then that falls into a case where things seem pretty clear, and I’m only likely to be around if I know some people anyway.)
Oh, pardon me. That was not particularly a serious recommendation. At least, not one that is likely to become relevant all that often. I was mostly being lighthearted so as to signal rapport with sixes as opposed to complete disagreement.
If, as it sounds, you would learn from any mistakes, and if you’re somewhere populous enough that a randomly selected person’s opinion of you doesn’t matter, I doubt that imposing this restriction on yourself is right, or benefits others more than it costs you. You’re allowed to briefly creep people out by mistake in order to learn useful things and reap the mutual benefits of non-creepy interactions.
Where do you think the “be conservative in what you do” is coming from in your case?
Hm, this sounds like good way of thinking about it. I already use this principle, but I had not thought it to apply it to such cases.
I’m not clear on how I could possibly answer that.
To clarify, I think I may have been thinking about it in the form of “I’m not likely to interact with these people”, rather than “I’m not likely to interact with these people again.” (Which raises the question of what if you are likely to encounter them again because you often encounter them in the same place. I suppose this still falls under “one random person, their opinion doesn’t matter”; it’s just going to take a bit of training to make myself think of someone I can already identify as a random.)
Agree, and with added emphasis! An excellent general social policy.
Perhaps I should further specify just what sort of spaces I’m clear and unclear on. (All “maybe”s, “probably”s refer to my own uncertainty, of course—for simplicity I’m doing writing this as if I hadn’t read any of the cousin posts yet.) The examples listed here are whatever I think of, mostly relevant ones but not all—I don’t think there’s a zoo anywhere around here and I haven’t been to one in quite some time, but the example occurred to me while I was writing this so I threw it in. I expect I’m right about the things I’m certain of but should that not be the case corrections would be appreciated!
Definitely OK to approach people: “Private public spaces”—anywhere where a person you don’t know can be assumed to be a friend of a friend—small parties, common rooms in dorms or co-op houses
OK to join existing conversations, maybe not OK to approach people initially: “Purposed public spaces”—anywhere where a person you don’t know can be assumed to share a common interest—a common room in a school department building, e.g. Game stores probably fit here too. Also probably competitions of any sort.
Probably OK but currently avoided by me: Outside—on the street, on the quad, in the park. Here the location doesn’t let you infer much of anything. (Unless something unusual is occurring, then clearly OK as people gather around it.)
???: Fast-food places or food courts. Non-quiet spaces where people go to get work done (but which are too general to fall under #2.) Zoos, museums, other similar places. Bookstores.
Probably not OK: Libraries.
Definitely not OK: Anywhere where you shouldn’t be talking in the first place. Most restaurants.
Again, thanks! The sibling posts have already clarified things some.
My suggestion: take a crash course in etiquette by going to another city nearby, and then spend a few days walking around asking questions, or inviting people to do stuff with you, etc. Condition yourself to get used to the occasional weird look, learn what you can get away with, and possibly make friends with people you would otherwise never meet. If all else fails, drive out of the city and pretend the entire thing never happened. Or you will get some amusing stories to share with me when you get back. How can you lose?
I am only partly joking, my social skills are so mediocre I have seriously considered doing exactly this at some point. I might throw in some speed dating as well for good measure.
I do this all the time, with fantastic results!
A current example is my temporary move to Boston/Cambridge. I’ve walked around asking random strangers questions such as “If you could live anywhere in Boston, where would you live?”
I’ve received great advice, and made a few friendships and event invites from doing so!
I endorse this advice wholeheartedly.
I can’t tell if people actually don’t care or if they are just oblivious, but I hate when people try to strike up a conversation while I’m using a public toilet. Bad when it’s a urinal, worse when it’s a stall. Maybe this falls under “spaces where people go to get work done”?
In ambiguous environments, it is best to determine ok-ness on the basis of the people.
Good situations: You are both doing the same thing—looking at the same genre of books in a bookstore, the same exhibit in a museum or zoo, both walking dogs in a park etc. This makes it easier to talk as you already have one thing in common and you can comment on that to see if they are receptive to conversation.
Something unusual happens—a delay on public transport, something wacky is going on in the quad etc
If you mean quad as in university, you already have a thing in common—you’re at the same university. It is likely to be okay to strike up a conversation.
They’re waiting for something. In a queue or waiting for public transport etc—may be bored
They’re having a cigarette—they probably have time for a quick chat and if you smoke too there’s a kind of unspoken thing with smokers where they will have a chat
Presence of alcohol but not a restaurant
Bad signs: Person is wearing headphones or reading—they are busy and unlikely to want to talk
They are a woman under 40-ish and you are a dude: potential difficulties, see below.
-
So there is a thing with a guy approaching a strange woman—she is likely to inductively infer that you are not just after a friendly chat. The best thing to do is use caution and watch for signals that she doesn’t want to be approached and be ready to back off if your intentions are misinterpreted. A good thing to do here is to make sure that it is immediately obvious that you are talking about something that is not her—comment on your shared situation ahead of saying anything like ‘hello’ or ‘how you doing’. Commenting on the books or the museum exhibit or something like that lets her know that you’re looking at that, not her tits.
I don’t agree with this one. It is highly variable.
OK, good to know. “Highly variable” is not particularly helpful but I suppose if it’s true then there might not be much more to say.
Regarding variability:
Are you in a section of the library where talking is forbidden? Probably don’t talk there unless you wish to flaunt rulebreaking.
Don’t interrupt people when they are thoroughly engrossed in reading a book or look like they are fully focussed on getting their assignment finished by 5:30. Do talk to people if they look more relaxed or generally not busy.
“Obvious” kind of stuff, for a suitable value of obvious. (Also ‘obvious’ is that you could probably talk to even the busy folks if you are particularly charming or appear high status. That’s how social rules work.)
The “don’t” part was pretty obvious to me, and generalizes to other places, the “do” part was not. :) I would have assumed people in libraries probably want to be left alone.
I spend a fair amount of my time off work either on public transportation or in coffee shops, and have found that how receptive people are to starting conversations varies widely within these settings.
On public transportation, there are observations one can make which can aid with determining whether someone is open to conversation. If they are already engaged in conversation with another passenger and appear either happy or lost, it is more often appropriate (people who are happy tend to have farther to go on their mood spectrum to get to creeped out or annoyed, as well as sometimes, as with the people I befriended a couple weeks ago, being in the mood to share their happiness with others, and people who are lost generally appreciate direction or at least a clarification of where they are on the map). A person confined to the seat next to you is less likely to be happy about a conversation, as they will feel they have less of an exit than, say, in a section where all seats face a middle aisle, meaning the area in which the conversation takes place is felt to be larger. In my experience, few people like to start conversations on their morning commute. So the important factors which determine whether it is appropriate to speak to someone on public transportation are time of day, physical position, and mood.
Coffee shops follow similar guidelines: it is often appropriate to chime in to existing conversations (as long as the conversation is not romantic or argumentative in nature). When a person might be forced by lack of seating to share your table, it is not appropriate to start a conversation if both of you have laptops, as you can be reasonably expected to be engaged with other people or projects. If the other person does not have a laptop or other electronic device with which they are engaged, it is generally appropriate to start a conversation.
I have found coffee shops environments where it is sometimes received well to butt in to interesting conversations. This has led to a few rebuffs, but also some highly interesting conversations. When people were gathered in the coffee shop for a purpose, such as a poetry reading, there was a significantly higher proportion of interesting conversations to rebuffs.
Public transit talkiness varies a lot by city. In Boston, it’s minimal. I understand in other cities, conversation is much more normal.
It’s my experience as a young woman that the only people who try to talk to me on public transit are men. If you’re a man, know that young women you try to talk to are probably going to assume you’re sketchy because they’ve been approached by so many other sketchy men before.
I veto talking to anyone who is reading. A possible exception might be if you’ve read what they’re reading and ask their opinion of it, or similar.
An anecdote: I was once reading Prattchett in a trolley-bus, and the ticket seller, a young man, exclaimed ‘Oh! You read Prattchett in the original!‘, and I was like, shit, he’s after my book and said ‘Yes,’ in an uninviting voice, and he went on his way… …and I still regret not taking the time to talk to him.:)
I have the same issue, and I personally think it’s stupid (as in, in what way is talking to a stranger in public weird?). Thinking it’s stupid doesn’t make it much easier to overcome my own inhibitions about it, but it is somewhere to start.
I think tact is the key. Interrupt as politely as you can, and gauge their reactions when you do. If it is clear they are not interested in your input, then turn around and leave them alone. No harm, no foul. If you have something to contribute, though, and the individuals weren’t specifically seeking a private conversation, then they will probably be interested in what you have to contribute.
This reminds me of a recent episode of the Ricky Gervais Show (basically Ricky and his friend make fun of another friend of theirs the whole time, funny but it gets old), where one of the hosts went swimming, noticed the guy in the lane next to him had an excellent front crawl (which the host has always struggled with) and asked the guy if he could give him some tips. Ricky’s response was “Oh god, you didn’t! Why would you do that?!” My thought the whole time was why in the world is that wrong? If the guy isn’t interested he’ll say no, and that will be it. If he is willing to help out a fellow swimmer then he will, and they may become friends over it. Where is the loss for anybody there?
I have a half dozen friends now that I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t done something very similar a couple years ago, at a swimming pool too, no less. I simply started talking to the lifeguard before and I after I swam. Not quite as out of the blue as the Gervais Show co-host, but it was similar.
Still, some people find it rude. I don’t for the life of me understand why, except for when they are clearly having (or are attempting to have) a private conversation, or talking about a personal. Otherwise, where is the harm? And really, the risk for me personally is extremely low. So some stranger thinks I’m odd, so what? Most people are odd in some way, friendliness is far from the worst odd trait you could have.
Strangers are a potential threat. So when a stranger comes up to you and initiates a conversation, there’s some reason to be on your guard.
This is combined with basic etiquette. If someone makes a small request, it is considered rude to refuse. The problem here is that creepy weird dangerous strangers can take advantage of this fact by making a small request, which then makes you feel obligated to comply. So now a complete stranger, who may be dangerous, has ensnared you. You’re now doing something that he asked, instead of something that you want to do. And he can keep you dancing to his tune by making more small requests. So if you follow the rules of etiquette, a complete stranger, possibly dangerous, can monopolize you for a significant length of time.
I see this happen all the time with telemarketers. The phone will ring. Somebody will answer it. Then they’ll be at the phone for a long time, maybe half a minute maybe a couple of minutes. And it turns out that it was a telemarketer, and the reason the person stayed at the phone for a long time was that he just couldn’t think of a polite way to end the conversation. You go ahead and try it. If you try to disengage, the telemarketer has a scripted response ready which cancels your attempt.
For my part, I’m not trapped by telemarketers. But I simply hang up. I say “no thanks”, and the telemarketer goes on to the corresponding point in his script, and I simply hang up on him while he’s in the middle of a sentence. That’s rude. But I do it, because there are no personal repercussions for me in doing it.
Being rude to a stranger face to face is not as easy to do. If you’re rude to someone, they might get angry, and one thing might lead to another. So it’s easy to hang up on telemarketers (for me, but importantly, not for everyone) but not so easy to “hang up” on a stranger right in front of you. For this reason, being approached by a stranger represents a more serious potential problem, a social trap that may be more difficult to get out of.
So what do you do? There are plenty of ways to initiate a conversation. One is to be already with somebody. If you’re not alone, if you already have a conversational partner, and if you’re deep in conversation with them, then you are obviously less in need of company, so the possibility that you might try to trap a stranger into a conversation is correspondingly reduced. Another method is to get the other person to initiate the exchange.
The thing to do with telemarketers, I have learned, is not to immediately hang up.
You just let them get to what they want to sell you, then say, loudly but politely and without a pause for them to butt in, something like “Let me stop you there, [name], I’m afraid I’m not interested, but thank you very much for calling.” If they don’t back down, THEN summarily hang up.
I prefer this to simply hanging up because doing the latter always makes me feel bad for several minutes afterward for having been rude to somebody who is, after all, trying to make a living.
No, it really is to hang up.
Your emotions seem to be doing both you and the telemarketers a disservice—perhaps due to an instinctive misunderstanding of what kind of social transaction is taking place. The telemarketer is not socially vulnerable and nor are you in a position where perception will have future consequences. They also don’t WANT to have an extended positive interaction that has no chance of success. Wasting five minutes on a mark that has no chance of giving a commission is strictly worse than an instant hang up. Your instincts are right that they are “after all, just trying to make a living” and you are just getting in their way.
I’m not saying it is necessarily worth retraining your emotional attachments in this case. You seem to attach pride to the act of wasting telemarketer time and guilt to the act of hanging up. This, combined with assertiveness practice you get and the cost of retraining yourself may mean that it is better to stay in the behavioral local minima.
My own attitude is that time spent talking to me is time they aren’t spending making a sale, so getting off the phone is the nicest thing I can do for them under the highly constrained circumstances. So as soon as I recognize them as telemarketers, I politely say “Sorry, but I’m really not interested; have a good day” and hang up, without waiting for them to do anything in particular.
I disagree that strangers as a potential threat is one of the driving motivators for this practice. It may be a rationalization for it, but it is not a natural position to take.
In sparsely populated areas, where strangers are less frequent, strangers are often assumed to be friendly. People are still wary, of course, because there is always the possibility that a stranger is dangerous, but this is not a particularly strong reason to avoid them completely. The occasions where this seems to not be true are when individuals want nothing to do with anybody new, regardless of who they are or where they come from or what potential threat they might be (i.e. the old man with the “trespassers shot on sight” signs posted doesn’t want anything to do with anybody).
In sparsely populated areas people will often take random strangers in need into their home for a night or two, far more than any small request the average stranger in a city might make, yet the people in the sparsely populated areas don’t seem particularly put off by this.
Your second point I think hits closer to the mark. People believe it is rude to say no, and so seek to avoid situations where they can be trapped into small requests like you mentioned. Instead of learning to say “no, sorry”, or “I’m sorry but this is a private conversation”, we ostracize those who are friendly (a really sad state of affairs common to any large-ish city).
This I disagree that this is rude. It is not rude for you to hang up on him after you decline his offer outright and he disregards you. That is extremely rude of him to do so. He is required to continue based on the nature of his job, but it is still rude. Taking his rudeness onto yourself is wrong.
It may be polite to oblige small requests, but it is not particularly impolite to decline them. You are not beholden to strangers, and there is nothing in the rules of etiquette to make you so.
This I think is also one of the major problems with people using a cell phone in inappropriate places. People seem to think it is rude to not answer the phone, even when it would be incredibly rude to those around you to do so. It’s a conflict and most people seem to choose the caller on the cell phone for some bizarre reason, even when it isn’t likely to be any kind of emergency.
You are talking about what ought to be. I am describing what is—how people think and behave. What we can observe is that many people have a great deal of difficulty getting off the phone when a telemarketer calls. The reason, I think, is clear: they are reluctant to end the conversation unless the other person lets them go, because this is conversational etiquette. That’s why it’s difficult. You saying that it ought not be difficult isn’t a description, it’s an exhortation. You’re talking in exhortatory/advisory mode when saying “I disagree that this is rude”. I’m talking in descriptive mode: ending a conversation when the other party has not let go violates the etiquette that many people have thoroughly internalized. It doesn’t matter that some alternative etiquette would be superior if analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint. The one people have internalized is the one that produces the behavior.
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won’t shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers. Though people want nothing better than for the bore to shut up and let them get on with their day, they stay and pretend to listen to the bore until the bore is done talking, which may not be for a long time. Again, it doesn’t matter that, analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint, the optimal behavior is to disengage. I’m describing, not advising. My advice is to cut them short, but that is neither here nor there.
Of course that is true, and it is not at all what I was advocating. And you’re right that suggesting people learn to say “no” is an exhortation. It was also quite beside the original point (though I did bring it up first, certainly).
The point is that politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude. Neither is asking a question. It can certainly become so if you ignore the hints to stop, but it does not start out that way.
I also doubt the bore enjoys boring people, so getting irritated at him when you aren’t willing to tell him to stop seems pretty inconsiderate to me.
Also, tautologies are tautological.
Indeed, I meant only to suggest there is a polite and impolite way to do it, and that interrupting in and of itself was not rude.
I could have phrased it better.
I’m sure they like to think they’re entertaining. Which, ironically, incentivises their investing very little in finding out they actually are. I honestly would expect someone to react pretty badly to being told or hinted at that they’re abusing your patience—and I think that’s why people get pissed off with such people. There’s little option to exit the conversation properly.
IME, bores tend to just find themselves with fewer and fewer friends as time goes on - often without ever finding out why. Because how can you tell them? Costs you social points for dubious gain.
I agree that the usual politeness rules don’t apply with telemarketers. I go with “No” or “No, thank you” and hang up.
This is actually relatively polite, not just compared to yelling at them, but also in comparison to keeping the conversation going (some people do this deliberately) when the telemarketer is certainly not going to make a sale.
This reminds me of a story I heard of a comedian who really put the screws to a telemarketer.
The comedian pretended to be a detective investigating a homicide when the telemarketer called, and started grilling him about his relationship with the deceased (i.e. the comedian). He even went so far as to find out what city and office building the guy worked at, and told him not to move because local police would soon be on their way to pick him up for questioning.
It was hilarious, but incredibly mean. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the telemarketer found himself a new job as soon as possible after that.
http://www.tommabe.com/videos-find/video_murder_scene.htm
This is my strategy: when entering any space, I call attention to my arrival by loudly making some comment to either the group in general, someone I know, or anyone who looks friendly. Obviously, this works best in familiar settings, maxing out its fitness in, say, your own home. (“Honey! I’m home!”) I find, however, that it works virtually anywhere that isn’t supposed to be quiet. People who want to be social will smile and engage you. In places like bars, cafes, or restaurants where this might be taken as obnoxious, tone it down, but feel free to speak to anyone around you. Most people are amenable to passing comments at the very least.
Could you give examples of comments (and appropriate contexts) in contexts other than your own home?
Say you go into Starbucks and there’s a long line of customers waiting to order a drink. Approach the end of the line and go “Whoah, long line!”. Chances are, you’ll get someone’s attention. People will turn around and look at you. When they do, make eye contact and say “We’re gonna be here a while!” or something like that. You’re immediately building rapport by referencing a shared context, as well as broadcasting your own confidence and willingness to socialize. It works great.
A more difficult scenario, but still quite doable, is a bookstore. Find someone reading a particular book or type of book, or looking through a certain section, and engage them on it. “Hey, good book!” They’re looking through the psychology section? Say “Psshh, Descartes. What did HE know?” This sort of thing will elicit a smile from almost anyone. The important thing is to not LOOK awkward, even though you may feel awkward.
Yes, this approach is cheesy. And some people may find you annoying. But those are people who are likely annoyed with life in general. Overall, you can generate a lot of positive results this way. If you want to generate maximum socialization, be THAT guy.
Also, it might be better to avoid addressing people in places where a lot of conversations go either between people-who-know-each-other or between drunk people and the people near to them. (In my case, it is a bus stop or the bus.) People-who-know-each-other (for example, by virtue of taking the same bus every day) might just think ‘ooh, another one’, without even going on to a noun.