A Rough Guide to Social Skills for Awkward Smart People | Hacker News Reader

A Rough Guide to Social Skills for Awkward Smart People

techno-anthropology.blogspot.com

273 pointsKennethMyers126 comments

I'm an awkward smart guy, but I'm not an egotistical ass. I'd really love a guide for social situations that would actually be of use.

Mainly it would address: -When in a social situation, other than silence, how am I suppose to participate or excuse myself from participating in a discussion about american idol or some other topic to which I have no knowledge and may perhaps despise? Neither being quite, admitting I don't follow said topic are well received. Isn't there a positive way out of this dilemma?

-When some one brings up something sad or bad that has happened is "I'm sorry to hear that" or "Don't worry, it will get better" really enough of a response? Frankly I find it hard to offer these "words of comfort" when I find no comfort in them myself. As a realistic person, I realize that sentiment does not alter a situation so it's hard to be encouraging. Should I just say them regardless?

-When discussing something with some one there are occasions when I'm genuinely curious as to why they have a certain line of reasoning. I want to ask "why do you think that?" but it always comes off condescending. This is especially true when perhaps we are discussing a problem and I know the solution and they do not. I want to know what the reasoning behind their solution is rather than just telling them it's wrong or what the correct solution is--however when trying to ask them their reasoning I can't come up with a way to do it without sounding condescending. Should I not bother?

-When walking leaving my office and entering the hallway, how close should a person be entering the hallway from the opposite direction be before I wave or say hello. If I wait to long, they think I ignore them. If I do it to early, then theres a great length of time that we are both still walking down the hall and having used my throw-away "Hey" I have nothing left to offer them. It's awkward.

-Is there a method/statement for suggesting an attempt at becoming friends with some one? "Hey, want to be friends" is unutterable for me. No matter how I imagine saying that line it feels pathetic. If I don't drink beer or coffee is there anything else to ask someone out to do in order to have some bonding time?

-How to accept a compliment. Thanks or agreement feels egotistical. Trying to act as humble by playing it down doesn't seem to be received well either.

When some one brings up something sad or bad that has happened is "I'm sorry to hear that" or "Don't worry, it will get better" really enough of a response?

You ask a very important question, because we all have occasion to hear other people's announcements of bad news. Expressing some sympathy is better than doing nothing, and is (if my experience is any guide) comforting to the person who announced the bad news. Among my several hundred Facebook friends (many of whom I know mostly via common subscription to email lists discussing parenting issues), there are friends who I don't know WELL, and whom I am unable to give any practical help, who nonetheless seem to appreciate me saying things like "Get well soon" or "I hope you get over that in a while" or even just "That's rough." Just acknowledging a fellow human being's common trouble from being part of the human condition seems to help somewhat. Perhaps I haven't given you a great deal of practical help by this reply, but I did want to reply to acknowledge that you are grappling with a tough problem.

When saying those things in-person it matters how you say it just as much as what you say.

Sometimes, if it is a co-worker that you don't talk much with, and it feels a little too awkward to say "sorry for you loss", it might be easier to offer to take some work off of them or help them with something else. Stuff like "I noticed you have this bug in your queue, assign it me if you like".

giberson said: """-When walking leaving my office and entering the hallway, how close should a person be entering the hallway from the opposite direction be before I wave or say hello. If I wait to long, they think I ignore them. If I do it to early, then theres a great length of time that we are both still walking down the hall and having used my throw-away "Hey" I have nothing left to offer them. It's awkward."""

1) I would recommend playing music. Playing music of any kind can allow you to become a better listener and help with timing your response or initial request/comment/gesture.

2) Be sincere; be empathetic.

3) Have fun.

Dude you are so right about playing music thats quite a theory you got there, all the people i know that play instruments are good listeners

1 - Try taking a small step back away from the group, this will signify that you would rather listen. Once in this position, you can escape ('go mingle') more easily.

2 - Words of comfort really don't help, they're more of a tribal signal. They're still necessary.

3 - Try saying "I'm not sure how you got to this step/result, could you explain it in more detail for me?"

4 - About 1-2 seconds of travel away.

5 - Talk about what they like, try to find common interests. Most people won't refuse a snack or dessert either.

6 - It's just "Thank you", then shut up and wait. Anything else doesn't work.

How to accept a compliment. Thanks or agreement feels egotistical. Trying to act as humble by playing it down doesn't seem to be received well either.

"The refusal of praise is only the wish to be praised twice." - Francois de La Rochefoucauld

"How to accept a compliment. Thanks or agreement feels egotistical."

Say thanks and smile.

But smile bashfully, as if you weren't expecting the compliment and are a little embarrassed by the attention. Do your basking in the glorious glow on the inside only.

"How to accept a compliment. Thanks or agreement feels egotistical. Trying to act as humble by playing it down doesn't seem to be received well either."

I'm now in the habit of accepting and reflecting. Not only is it generous, it also tends to be true. "Wow, Bob, you got N done really fast and you did a great job, thanks!" "My pleasure, Steve - I couldn't have done it without Mary's help." Getting in the habit of forcing myself to give others credit _really_ opened my eyes to how solo efforts are still group efforts: "My pleasure, Steve - I couldn't have done it without Mary picking up my other clients' work during this project."

Worst case scenario, where you're convinced it really is solo work or where deflecting 'correctly' takes too much explanation, accept and deflect to the praiser. "My pleasure, Steve. Thanks for saying something."

I'm not sure this approach is "right", but it's what I've been doing in the face of the dilemma you mention.

This may be the most "socially smooth" way of handling the situation, but be careful about the classic tooting-your-own-horn problem. In some situations, it may be "socially awkward" or egotistical to take a compliment directly to yourself, but it may be advantageous for your position.

Basically, try to be as nice and polite as possible; just avoid getting shat on.

- Either crack a joke and direct the conversation to something else, grin and bear it, or if possible calmly slip away for a few minutes.

- What you say is not nearly as important as listening. Let their words be your guide. Sometimes just good eye contact, nodding, and "I understand" are more than enough.

- Acknowledge the value in their reasoning and then pivot into a discussion about it. "Hmm... I've never thought about it like that before. I like what you say about a, b, and c. But have you considered for x, y, and z..."

- About close enough to make solid eye contact (say 15 feet or so) then a second or two after. The lack of good eye contact is usually the issue.

- "I have to say I really enjoy chatting with you Dave, truly, sometimes it's crazy how our minds seem to run on the same train of thought. I have to catch a meeting in 5 but let's continue this soon. How about lunch later this week?" And then just a natural progression from there... if you guys both have significant others, couples night out.

- Flip the table. If someone did something you admired and you thanked them, how would you feel if they didn't express some gratitude back? If you're charmingly self-deprecating that's one thing, but if not it could seem like you're basically saying "your opinion does not matter." A warm thank you is never egotistical.

> When discussing something with some one there are occasions when I'm genuinely curious as to why they have a certain line of reasoning. I want to ask "why do you think that?" but it always comes off condescending.

The degree of condescension perceived here is going to be a function of /how/ you ask; but also realize that people often don't have good answers for their reasoning or can't articulate them well.

If I'm going to delve in to someone's reasoning, I'll start with "that's interesting" - said as genuinely as possible. I want someone to think I'm asking because I'm /interested/, not because I'm trying to prove them wrong. I'll normally then start to ask them questions about their reasoning, rather than ask them for the reasoning straight out: "So does x mean that y is also true?" or similar. A small amount of prodding like this, and they will usually start to talk. People fundamentally consider their views and opinions to be both important and interesting - if you can /show/ interest in them, rather than worrying them that you've about to prove them wrong, then you'll get traction.

> Is there a method/statement for suggesting an attempt at becoming friends with some one? "Hey, want to be friends" is unutterable for me. No matter how I imagine saying that line it feels pathetic. If I don't drink beer or coffee is there anything else to ask someone out to do in order to have some bonding time?

I always use "Hey, are you on Facebook?" Facebook is a great way of making low-pressure bonds with people, although you'll have needed to build sufficient rapport first. Invite people to come to an event that you want to attend, that you think they'd be interested in. After the first few meets, it'll be way more normal to "just hang out" but people often want an excuse at first, so they're not worried it'll be awkward.

> How to accept a compliment. Thanks or agreement feels egotistical. Trying to act as humble by playing it down doesn't seem to be received well either.

Big smile, and "you're very kind". Then people don't know if you agreed, or you were being humble! Social win through obscurity :)

-When in a social situation, other than silence, ...

I need help with this too. My approach currently has been to spot moments when I can ask questions that wouldn't be dumb. This works but not for long. Also, since moments of such questions may be infrequent, I find myself in purely listening mode often.

One observation though. I find it a lot easier to handle this one in small groups (2-3 people including myself). Big groups like 5-20 people and I am usually just silent. Since I share many of these concerns, I wonder if it is this observation applies to other smart people too.

-When some one brings up something sad or bad

A "sorry to hear that" followed by a question of the sort "how did this happen?" helps. This shows your genuine concern, shifts the conversation to them, gives them a listener and thus comfort. Issue happens when you encounter someone who's always in such bad mood.

-...curious as to why they have a certain line of reasoning.

This is hard indeed. I start by saying, "Hmmm, never thought of it that way. My understanding on this so far was this and that ..." This takes the conversation along without offending them, though generally does not lead to consensus. Worst is when their line of reasoning is full of logical errors and inconsistencies, in which case you just don't bother.

I have also tried, "Another possible line of reasoning is ...". Doesn't generally work.

-hallway, how close should a person

When far, I just wave "showing no intent of a conversation or expectation of an answer". Then, if and when close enough to the person, utter a few words.

-Is there a method/statement for suggesting an attempt at becoming friends with some one?

More often than you may realize, the issue is that the other party is also in the same situation as you. By starting the conversation first, no matter what you say, you can get the conversation going.

Yet, I find this hard with some specific people who start the conversation (good), but by asking the question that you have no answer to. (E.g.: "Don't you take your wife around?". Neither of the answers "I do!" and "No I don't" works well.)

Since I share many of these concerns, I wonder if it is this observation applies to other smart people too.

Yes.

* "When in a social situation, other than silence, how am I suppose to participate or excuse myself from participating in a discussion about american idol or some other topic to which I have no knowledge and may perhaps despise? Neither being quite, admitting I don't follow said topic are well received. Isn't there a positive way out of this dilemma?" *

One way in which you might participate is to explore what the other person finds so fascinating about the topic. You may think its idiotic but they clearly don't, so rather than try to convince them of your point of view, find out theirs.

Typical start "Oh did you see who got voted off idol last night!?"

Response, "I haven't been keeping up, but it sounds like you were surprised by that, did you think that was the wrong choice?"

Now you have done two things, one pointed out you have nothing to add in the discussion and two not made it seem like they are an idiot for watching it.

They may have a reason behind their surprise, find out what it is, find out what kinds of music they like and why, did this person sing songs from that genre? Did they do poorly?

As long as you realize it isn't a reflection on you that someone wants to talk about something you don't seek out, you can probably find some aspects of it that are at least entertaining.

> One way in which you might participate is to explore what the other person finds so fascinating about the topic. You may think its idiotic but they clearly don't, so rather than try to convince them of your point of view, find out theirs.

In my experience most people who follow the big fad of the day (royal wedding, big brother, american idol, etc) are never really fascinated by it. If you ask them "what fascinates you about american idol?", the answer you're most likely to hear is "wtf, what do you mean?". Many of these things are designed to be attention-grabbing and to encourage chattering about their consequences, even if there is absolutely nothing interesting or actually at stake in that.

In this sort of situation I either (a) go talk to actually interesting people whenever someone starts blabbing about fad-of-the-day or (b) pretend to find it interesting and listen to what the person is saying only to be made bored very soon.

"In my experience most people who follow the big fad of the day (royal wedding, big brother, american idol, etc) are never really fascinated by it. If you ask them "what fascinates you about american idol?", the answer you're most likely to hear is "wtf, what do you mean?". Many of these things are designed to be attention-grabbing and to encourage chattering about their consequences, even if there is absolutely nothing interesting or actually at stake in that."

Hmm, my experience is quite different here. Generally I find that people may start off with some big fad of the day because it's nominally a 'safe' topic and something which can start a conversation without offending or knowing another persons interests apriori.

Almost any 'fad of the day' topic has a route into a more interesting topic.

American idol - influence of music on society, what defines popular, changes in the music industry that make idol possible, etc.

Royal wedding - the role of the monarchy in modern nation states, the role of weddings in changing fashion, is marriage as a concept out of date, etc.

Big brother - voluntary surveillance vs involuntary, peoples behavior when they know they are being 'watched' vs not being watched, the role of 'reality' tv in the definition of morals in 21st century society.

One of the things that can trip up folks is concluding that because someone just asked you your opinion on last night's American Idol decision they believe that the best use of your time would be watching American Idol. Take it as the equivalent of 'nice weather we're having today isn't it?' and you can often find a common discussion ground at the appropriate level.

> American idol - influence of music on society, what defines popular, changes in the music industry that make idol possible, etc.

In my experience, if you bring up american idol most people will more likely say something like "god, did you look at her hair??" than something like "I wonder how the perception of fame and importance will change in 21st century society after the music industry realizes the artist brand is meaningless". You must certainly have different social circles from mine, as while it is possible to talk highly about trash pop culture, most people are completely uninterested in doing so (i.e., they turn to trash to turn their minds off, not to reflect about society, life, the universe, and everything).

The point of talking of things like royal wedding, American idol etc. is exactly that it is a harmless common ground for starting conversations with people you don't necessarily have much in common with. Like the weather. It is not that most people are that interested in the particular topic, it is just that you need to start somewhere if you want to find out if you have something to talk about.

How do you find out if people are "actually interesting", if you never start talking to them?

I dunno man. I think you have the right idea, but "It sounds like you were surprised by that, did you think that was the wrong choice?" dooesn't come off quite right. It sounds a bit too analytical and parentlike/therapistlike.

You have to engage people on a personal level. Maybe like "Oh, did they vote off the wrong guy?" Something more casual, at least.

The way I read it, the reason ChuckMcM chose that particular wording, was to most clearly elucidate the sentiment, believing the reader would understand the need to adapt it. But it was prudent of you to make that explicit.

Sure was, dawg

> When in a social situation, other than silence, how am I suppose to participate or excuse myself from participating in a discussion about american idol or some other topic to which I have no knowledge and may perhaps despise?

Try expressing curiosity in the other person's interest. Admit that you don't know the subject, but keep your opinion of it to yourself, and just ask questions about it. For example, what interests you about American Idol?

"If I don't drink beer or coffee is there anything else to ask someone out to do in order to have some bonding time?"

You can tell them you're looking for something new to read/watch/listen to, and ask if they have any recommendations. Having a new person interested in your opinion is flattering. You can easily bond over shared tastes and experiences, and it's fun to learn new stuff. If you're interested in food, it's quite natural for a foodie chat to turn into dinner plans.

You can also propose to try out a new place to get lunch. Lunch seems to be considered way less intimate than dinner, and has a naturally shortish time window so you can break it off without awkwardness.

> Is there a method/statement for suggesting an attempt at becoming friends with some one?

Pick up a hobby that you can do with other people: sports, martial arts, improv comedy, dancing, etc.

> "Hey, want to be friends" is unutterable for me.

Well, that's not a problem with you, that approach is really weird.

"... how close should a person be entering the hallway from the opposite direction be before I wave or say hello ..."

From far away, Joe Navarro, "Impressing other at a distance - getting it right" ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201011/two-go... then up close, "Influence - Up Close (Part Two) ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201102/influe...

"When some one brings up something sad or bad that has happened is "I'm sorry to hear that" or "Don't worry, it will get better" really enough of a response? Frankly I find it hard to offer these "words of comfort" when I find no comfort in them myself. As a realistic person, I realize that sentiment does not alter a situation so it's hard to be encouraging. Should I just say them regardless?"

One thing that could work in this situation is mirroring--something like "wow, I can't imagine how awful that must feel". In other words, communicate whatever the person is saying to you (through words, vocal tone, and body language) right back to them.

"When discussing something with some one there are occasions when I'm genuinely curious as to why they have a certain line of reasoning. I want to ask "why do you think that?" but it always comes off condescending. This is especially true when perhaps we are discussing a problem and I know the solution and they do not. I want to know what the reasoning behind their solution is rather than just telling them it's wrong or what the correct solution is--however when trying to ask them their reasoning I can't come up with a way to do it without sounding condescending. Should I not bother?"

How about "So what was your thinking here?" If that doesn't work, you could try being upfront: "OK, hm, I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but could you go ahead and explain your thinking to me anyway?" Then look thoughtful as the person explains their thinking, and then rub your chin as you say "OK, yeah, so I'm fairly sure that..." (Note the use of filler words and pauses at the beginning of sentences--I've found that if you hem and haw a lot when contradicting someone they seem to take it better.)

"When walking leaving my office and entering the hallway, how close should a person be entering the hallway from the opposite direction be before I wave or say hello. If I wait to long, they think I ignore them. If I do it to early, then theres a great length of time that we are both still walking down the hall and having used my throw-away "Hey" I have nothing left to offer them. It's awkward."

What works for me is to pretend that I don't see the person until we're close enough that there won't be much time to say anything beyond "hey". Another thing you could do is wave or salute when at a distance and leave the talking until you're closer.

"Is there a method/statement for suggesting an attempt at becoming friends with some one? "Hey, want to be friends" is unutterable for me. No matter how I imagine saying that line it feels pathetic. If I don't drink beer or coffee is there anything else to ask someone out to do in order to have some bonding time?"

Yeah, lunch :)

If you want to be friends with someone, there's probably a reason. Maybe you tend to agree on things, maybe the person has some skill or ability that you respect, etc. So just telling the person straight up what you like about them could be a good way to indicate that you want to be friends.

"How to accept a compliment. Thanks or agreement feels egotistical. Trying to act as humble by playing it down doesn't seem to be received well either."

When I imagine myself saying thanks comfortably, here's what I'm doing:

Saying "thank you" quickly while nodding downward and flexing my chin, thereby pushing my lower lip upward and outward in a sort of subtle, thoughtful smile. The pitch of my speech starts high and descends downwards rapidly. The emphasis is on the first syllable.

My theory is that the downward nod is the most important part--by lowering my head, I'm subtly lowering my projected status as I accept the compliment, making me seem un-egotistical.

Just using more syllables might also work well here: "Thank you, I appreciate that." The implication being that since you spent so many syllables expressing your thanks, the compliment the other person gave you was genuinely welcome for you to hear.

Wow, so many of these are exactly stuff that I had to figure out, but I didn't know anyone else had them! Anyway, here's a few I know the answers to:

- The hallway problem: The best way to mitigate this is to know something about the person. Then you can say "hey, how's that <insert thing here> coming?". Or, if your friend is wearing something interesting, say: "Hey, cool shirt!".

- The magical friendship word: You don't really formally become friends with someone, say the phrase and have a ceremony and all that. Just start conversation or invite them to something you happen to be doing, like grabbing lunch or going to that <x> that you know the other person is also interested in.

- Expressing sentiment: This isn't about helping, it's about sympathy and compassion. Of course it won't make the problem better, but it might make the person feel better.

- Genuine curiosity: Just say "I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm really curious". And don't sound sarcastic while you do that. Does the job for me.

- Participating in a conversation about things you know nothing about: Either don't come in with a positive / negative bias or just don't talk. If you do decide to talk, keep in mind there is always something interesting in everything. American Idol: "You mean these people give up their jobs for a year to just sing?" "I wonder why person <x> got selected when he's obviously a talentless moron" "I wonder what happens to the losers after the show is over".

Wow, just talking about this stuff is awkward and makes me sound like a robot. I guess some people get it naturally and others like us don't.

American Idol: Admit you don't follow, but act interested and ask a few questions here and there. If you have the opportunity, try to steer the conversation to topics that interest you along the way. I think what isn't well received is only if you act like watching things like that is a stupid waste of time.

Sad situations: This one took me a while to figure out. When someone came to me with their problems, I alwas thought they were searching for a solution, so I offered my opinion on how to fix the issue. Mostly this was not so well received - I think because the person is stressed out to begin with and offering solutions gives them no excuse not to act on their problems. Most people only want emotional support, or as someone else said, their problems to be acknowledged; so a simple "I'm sorry to hear that." is usually enough. Listeing is better in these cases than talking.

Ask for reasoning: You can also pretend not to understand them, to put the "stupiditiy" on yourself instead of them. "I don't really understand how you arrived at that conclusion, could you elaborate a little further?"

Friends: Look for things you have in common with the other person, then try to arrange doing something together. If there's a movie you are both interested in, ask them to go see it with you. If they like you back, they'll most likely try to arrange to meet again. (Though sometimes you need to be persistent because others aren't that great at friend-making either.)

Compliments: Show the other person that you appreciate the compliment, because it's not something you take for granted. I think this is more humble than totally discarding them.

Just observe what other people do.

>When discussing something with some one there are occasions when I'm genuinely curious as to why they have a certain line of reasoning. I want to ask "why do you think that?" but it always comes off condescending.

Don't use an insulting or accusative tone, use a curious tone. It makes all the difference.

People relate to each other based on emotions, rather than facts, which is the basis for most "awkward smart guy" conversations.

American Idol: "I've heard a lot about this show, but I haven't seen it yet. I wonder why it's so popular. It must really resonate with people for some reason. Why do you think it's so popular?" This should appeal to anyone who's reasonably smart, whether or not they're a fan of the show.

Something sad or bad: First say "I'm sorry to hear that," and then empathize by relating a similar experience that you or your friend had. Show some vulnerability, show that you understand them by conveying the emotion from a real experience that you've had. People want to feel comforted by having companionship and feeling understood.

Curious as to their line of reasoning: "Why do you think that?" is fine for other awkward smart people. Find a softer more polite way for everyone else. Also, allow the possibility they might be right. "Oh, that's interesting. I always thought XYZ was true, rather than ABC, but maybe you're thinking about it differently than I am."

At what distance to say Hi: It doesn't matter, as long as you acknowledge them once a day, and everyone knows this sort of thing is silly. Establish eye contact somewhere around 7-10 feet away, acknowledge them with a smile or a Hey shortly after, like 5-7 feet.

Making friends: Nope, beer and coffee are the basis of all friendships. Better start getting used to it!

Accepting compliments: Say thank you without making a big deal out of it. It's not egotistical at all. If you want to lighten the mood, joke that you have them fooled, and you're really quite the opposite.

American Idol (etc) is actually a pretty interesting exercise in game theory.

The good singers know they need to keep something in reserve for the later rounds, but if they keep too much back then they get knocked out early.

Plus there are things like song choice - someone wants to appear individual and interesting so they need to choose unique songs. But they want to appeal to the widest audience possible, which means popular, well known songs. Trade offs are always interesting.

Try watching for a few weeks and you'll get the idea. Then you'll never need to watch it again, because you can reuse the same comments every year:

ohhh.. he thought he was so good last week and played it too safe/She should have kept that song for later when she'd built up a better fanbase/etc etc

Just a couple general things I think could be helpful here:

1) In conversation, you should try to listen more than you speak. Remember, everyone loves to talk about something they're interested in, and have other people actually listen. (this is probably the crux of the original article - dorks love talking about their pet topics, as does everyone, but we think our topics are better and therefore its OK to hog a conversation).

From Reddit, I got this gem. When you slip into boring "what do you do for a living?" / "what are you studying in school?" Q/A time, break out of it with "do you like it?"

For example:

    You: So what are you studying in school?
    Stranger: Chemistry
    You: Do you like it?
    Stranger: Well, I do, but blah blah blah...

Works shockingly well.

2) Sad moments,bad things have happened - this is a really hard one. I've taken to complete honesty - "that sucks man. I hate that happened to you." Then I shut up, hug them if appropriate, and let them talk more about it if they want to.

In these moments, people want to be heard, but they don't want a solution.

3) Situations where you know you're right, and the other person would be interested in knowing, but you don't want to be a dick -

Start with, "I don't know much about this, but I did read the Wikipedia page the other day...(smile)"

Everyone accepts Wikipedia as correct, and everyone uses it. So it turns the frame from "I'm smarter than you" to "I happened to Google it first".

4) When to say "hi"when people approach

Tough one. What I do is smile all the time and try to make eye contact from 10-15 feet out (I generally try to look up though, so this doesn't seem jarring). Then I say "Hi", continue the big smile and eye contact as we pass. Seems to work well for me, especially if I remember that no one is good at this situation, and they aren't judging me.

5) Making friends - just say "let's hang out." For me, "let's grab a beer" is easy, but I don't see how that wouldn't work for anything else. Sports are fun, you could try inviting a coworker to a baseball game or something.

No need to overthink this one. People are nice, and they like making friends.

6) Accepting compliments - super hard. What works for me is big smile, look down a bit like I'm slightly embarrassed, and say "Wow, you made my day."

7) In general, smile all the time, even if it feels forced. You'll find that your own mood will be so much better, and a good smile can make another person's day better. If you do one thing, just make a point to smile, and you'll see a night and day difference.

Anecdotally, I often have long hair and a beard, so if I don't smile, people think I'm aggressive, standoffish, antisocial, mad, whatever (100% untrue). If I make a point to smile, people see me as accepting, non-judgemental, and friendly - which is what I hope to be.

Best of luck! If you're in Raleigh, I'm always up to hang out with new people.

>I'd really love a guide for social situations that would >actually be of use.

You may want to check out http://www.succeedsocially.com. It's helped me more than anything else with my own awkwardness around people. It's free and has a nice no-bullshit attitude to it.

Forget the other replies. The key to avoiding social awkwardness is all about broadcasting your expectations, and reading (then responding to) others' expectations.

Socially awkward people tend to be poor broadcasters of what they expect from others, similarly they tend to be poor at reading what others expect from them.

If you want to be less socially awkward, you must communicate your expectations to others. Look at yourself in the mirror and make sure your face and body language are communicating what you intended.

Once you've learned this, you'll see that the real problem is how to deal with people who communicate their expectation of you for a response that you don't want to give.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give an example of an expectation that someone would need to broadcast to others?

Let's bring back the example in the parent: you see a coworker down the hall, wave, then walk towards him only to pass him awkwardly. In this scenario, the wave coupled with walking towards a person sends a signal like "I have something to say to you." The awkwardness is caused because there was an expectation set up that was not what you intended. Also, the next time he sees you down the hallway he'll feel like he has to wave since that is what you did before.

Instead, consider this: just ignore the guy, if he waves or says Hi, just nod while you pass him. It might seem rude/dismissive at first, but if you have no underlying reason for malice and you can prove that at a subsequent interaction (e.g. conversation at a water cooler) then what you'll have done is set up an expectation that you don't want to be bothered when you're walking from point A to point B.

Since everything else was already covered by others except of "How to accept a compliment" - here is my take.

My response usually is: "Thank you very much, I'm glad you noticed it." Or something in the general direction. When I am also certain of stellar job I did I usually add: "I try very hard to get it right."

Some people might take it as egotistical - but in my experience it is usually the real egotists trying to get you out of the way. I don't go around telling people how awesome I am - but when somebody thinks so, I make the most of it.

I also try to pass along credit - by notifying the complimentor of who helped me out and by passing compliment along to those I put forward.

I never play it down - since that might insult the complimentor.

The general philosophy is what my mother taught me: "When somebody offers you something - you should gratefully accept. If you have no use for what you received then you find someone who does and pass it along."

This isn't about social skills, it's about not being a dick.

I am socially awkward, I struggle to talk to people and I can't maintain eye contact, but I sure as hell know "You're a moron and your beliefs are idiotic" isn't a nice thing to say. Are there seriously people who think that this is appropriate (and use "Sorry I'm socially awkward" as an excuse)?

I don't think people (except for the most abrasive) actually say "you're a moron and your beliefs are idiotic". It's more smug and subtle than that, but yes, there are a lot of people who palpably write others off as inferior because of such beliefs. I had this experience as a liberal in a conservative social group at one point in my life.

Where it's most jarring is with religion. I don't object if people believe or don't believe in a God, but I do find it bizarre how many people out there will automatically write someone off as a moron just because that person has any religious beliefs. Sure, there are a lot of moronic religious beliefs and idiotic religious people, but not everyone who has religious beliefs is an intolerant idiot.

And to take it one step furter: Being intolerant idots seems to be unrelated to religious beliefs.

Earlier on, when more people had religious beliefs, most intolerant people of course were religious. Now, not so much.

What impresses me as I get older is how little, good or bad, is correlated to a person holding religious beliefs.

A fair number of people think that a belief in God makes them a better person. That may be, but there are a lot of great people who don't believe in any higher power or afterlife, and I don't see a correlation either way. My suspicion is that most good people who believe in God would still be good people if they didn't believe in God or an afterlife. There are others (on the atheistic side) who argue that belief in God is unreasonable and a sign of a feeble mind, but there's no evidence for that either. I do think certain strains of belief (i.e. fundamentalism) appeal to the worst of humanity, but these don't account for most religious believers.

I think one of the major issues is that the common religious labels (Christian, atheist, Buddhist) are so broad as to be effectively meaningless. You can be a smart, liberal, universalist Christian, a spiritual atheist who believes in life after death, an observant Jew who believes in reincarnation, or an intolerant, conservative Buddhist. (For each of those descriptions, I can name at least a few meeting them.) So any claim made about "atheists" or "Christians" or "Muslims" as a group is going to be nearly meaningless. I definitely think there is a lot in religion that has immense transformative power (for good and bad) but the mere matter of whether a person has religious beliefs or not or belongs to a religious organization seems to say very little about that person.

You can find a lot of this on Reddit. Hacker News, too. Look, I just did it in this comment.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who felt put-off by this. Generally the smartest people I know are also the most humble. And is it just me, or does this article not even take its own advice as evidenced by phrases such as "oh ye smart and lonely"?

Some more nuanced advice would have been nice, so I'll toss this out there: my current effort is to avoid over-qualifying what I say. Because I care about precision & nuance (and being 'actually right'), I can end up taking 90 seconds to say something that a 'normal person' can say in 15. "I thought it was a pretty good movie" turns into, "Though the cinematography seemed like it was trying too hard to be cinematography (though it resulted in some moments of beautiful film,), I thought the actors did great. Obviously not his best acting, but pretty good, really, considering that..."

Conversational negotiation demands shorter transactions: if the other person wants to know more they'll ask, "Oh, what did you like about it?"

It's hard stuff :)

> the smartest people I know are also the most humble.

I've found that it's the most accomplished people I know who are usually humble (about their achievements and otherwise), and they usually also happen to be very smart.

There are a lot of smart people who are doing nothing with their intelligence, content to just feel superior to others by way of their raw ability to intellectualize. Absent of any meaningful manifestation, intelligence is an unimportant distinction between people, in my opinion.

This isn't about social skills, it's about not being a dick.

And yet it is so easy to be a dick. I remember working at one company where my boss was awesome at telling me when I had inadvertently made myself less popular. The classic example was when someone in a meeting said "Wow, [some technology] sounds amazing - how does it work?" and I started my reply with "Well... it's quite complicated, but..."

Now, when someone tells you that the above is irritating and condescending, it's obvious - but before then I had never considered it. So socially awkward isn't necessarily about lacking confidence :)

It's easy enough to appear to be a dick quite innocently though.

Take the suggestion in this thread of asking people "What is it you like about American Idol?" - a question which is all too easy to appear dismissive of their mainstream taste (especially when you're obviously the only person in the room not able to discuss last night's installment) even if you regularly enjoy providing detailed answers for similar questions posed by the same people on your love for Lisp, string theory or Star Trek.

"not being a dick" is one of the most important (and perhaps least used) "social skills".

If you've got no other framework to decide what to say or how to behave, measuring up your options by asking yourself "Will this make me look like a dick?" will set you on the right path almost 100% of the time.

> "You're a moron and your beliefs are idiotic" isn't a nice thing to say. Are there seriously people who think that this is appropriate

The only thing that I can say is: You're a moron and your question is idiotic. cackle

I think there are definitely different kinds of social awkwardness. I tend to be more of the type that cannot find anything to say in social situations. On the other hand, one of my roommates is a different type of socially awkward, closer to the description in the blog post, where arguments with him end up with him saying things like, "That's dumb. A rational person would never think that."

Yes, they exist. Not only do they think ragging on other people is appropriate, they think it's cool to be "up-front" and "honest". I used to interact with people like this on a daily basis.

EDIT: I must mention that spending time with these people can be emotionally taxing. All I feel is uncontrollable rage when I see these people online or at social events. I've spent far too much time and energy thinking about them ...

I'm socially awkward and after reading lots of books on this topic I've come to realize that social skills are just that, skills. You get better at social situations the more time you spend in them. You'll never get good at them by sitting at a computer reading books about how to get good at them.

Most of us geeks do not have social skills because we haven't spent as much time as 'normal' people interacting with others. I have spent thousands of hours on computers, time I could have spent doing things with other human beings. Instead of being great at interacting with others, I'm predictably good at interacting with computers.

There is no shortcut for gaining social skills[0], and no book is going to solve all of our 'problems', or even a quarter of them. I'd say if you read a book on better friendships or public speaking and this improves your skills by 3% then it must have been a truly fantastic book.

The only solution is for us to engage in a lot of interactions with others, if for some reason we deem it worthy of our time. For example, if a guy is terribly shy during business lunches, the only solution is for him to keep throwing himself into that situation again and again.

After 100 or 200, or 1000 lunches most of his business lunch awkwardness will have gone away.

But is getting better at interacting with people worth the time we could have spent getting better at interacting with computers[1]? Maybe for some[2].

[0] None that I have found.

[1] Through learning more about a programming language or an OS, etc.

[2] For example if you decide to choose a career that greatly depends on effective human interaction.

> But is getting better at interacting with people worth the time we could have spent getting better at interacting with computers

I can attribute almost all my freelance work to direct personal relationships. That formed through working on projects together and sharing (many) beers. The secret about the iOS contracting world is that most people are capable of doing the work once they are competent - but if they do not know people who know people at small and big companies - they won't get some contracts. Referrals are huge.

The focus on being a spy is useful but ultimately misguided. The real problem is being so cocksure to begin with. You DON'T know everything, and other people generally do have something to offer.

Exactly. The thing I find fascinating about human social interaction is its richness. It's confusing not because it's trivial, but because its so complex and approximate, unlike the rigid and hyper-rational world we techies like to inhabit.

If you're patient enough to probe beneath the surface, it's not just a debate of the merits of Justin Bieber, it's an incredibly nuanced group negotiation of power and identity, with rules far more complex than those of any software stack.

This is why the term "clue-bat" rejoices my nerd mind so much, as we all know deep inside that it's an oxymoron. One cannot forcibly insert clue into someone by wielding metaphorical instruments head on. The most effective LART is not a bat, it's lead poisoning. Yup, leading someone closer to truth (whatever that means) is something that requires patience and subtlety. It's a puzzle in itself, only sometimes the problem at hand needs no derailing towards enlightenment of clueless folks, for various constraints of time and complexity are prevailing, thus you wish you had some magical tool at hand, skipping the hand-holding process altogether, so that finally, can we move forward now, please?

Yet sometimes, the inexperienced, naive mind comes in and utters words of magic, triggering the process towards a brilliant solution that could have not emerged from our overarching minds, clouded by our experience and knowledge. This kind of emergence is one that we should learn to recognize and not mistakenly quench before it had time to bloom.

Maybe we're smart dorks, but we should be open-minded ones.

I've found the smartest people I know tend to embrace the ethos of this piece almost instinctively. As for those who have to be spoon-fed these strategies? Well, in short: they're not as smart.

Now, I would argue that you can't necessarily measure this; those you are convinced are the smartest could be significantly less smart, but may be able to trick you into thinking they are the smartest through social skills. In any case, though, I agree to some degree- the smartest can adapt well to most situations, including social ones.

I'd agree. It's quite easy to question the intelligence of someone who tries to socialise, finds it fails again and again, notices that everyone else has no difficulty but assumes the problem is with everyone else.

Well - I guess "smart" is just a word that's difficult to define. I think the definition used by the OP is something along the lines of being better at academical subjects, which clearly isn't your only criteria.

I for one used to be quite awkward, but had awesome friends that pointed out what (not) to do. Am I less smart for not having figured that out on my own? Perhaps, but I don't think it's relevant how skills are obtained.

Is this ironic? The article is about not calling people idiots and treating them with respect. Is what you said respectful of people who need to be "spoon-fed" these ideas?

The dilemma of defining smart as "can figure out what to do" is that it puts no limitations on intelligence.

Some of these skills are not mastered for multiple reasons: emotional ones like fear and apprehension or lack of familiarity with cultural differences, expectations, etc...

Smart people still have limits.

Isn't it interesting to seee, that this thread got so many points, without actually beeing a good post? Every comment I read is actually disagreeing with the author. And yet the topic is so interesting to everyone that the result is exciting for everyone and the post a success for the author.

There is a big lecture here for everyone. You can actually do something awkward if the direction is somehow important to the other people around you. Because in the end your social success is not about you. It is about what is important for the other people.

I wish that people had told me earlier that it's possible to be both smart and not awkward. Circa sixth grade, I gave up my academic life for my social life. Now I'm in CMU desperately trying to get above 50th percentile.

CMU? 50th percentile? Congratulations on finding a community of people who are amazing enough to make you look normal :)

I'm making strides but it's still a far cry from high school, where I was easily one of the smartest kids without ever trying. Coming to CMU definitely humbled me quite a bit!

But that aside, I'm still not content with being normal. When I sold out my intelligence, it meant years of hard work on socializing and stuff (seriously. It's hard work). Now that I'm stepping back into academics, I'm aiming for the top again. But it's so much harder the second time around :(

It's actually the first time if you never had to try before. I think this is an issue that lots of people having an easy time in HS have, we actually need to learn how to study once things get more complex.

I actually don't think I was ever "naturally intelligent". My current grades prove that. But the reason I could cruise through high school was because my parents drilled me with algebra, vocabulary quizzes, geography, and Montessori school when I was 4-9 years old. That undeniably put me ahead for the next ten or so years.

I faced the same choice circa eight grade. Gave up my academic life for my social life. Miraculously made it into Amherst, then nearly flunked out of Amherst twice. Made the opposite choice when I was 23, giving up my social life for my academic/professional life. Worked great, wrote some popular computing stuff, got into Google, worked on high-profile & high impact projects. I was miserable.

I'm still trying to figure out a balance between them.

Immediate up-vote for the flagrant flaunting of Godwin's law.

Please, someone send this to Richard Stallman, fast.

I watched a video of him picking something from his foot and eating it (during a question and answer setting full of people and, obviously cameras). But really, what does it matter if he doesn't mind?

The video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ

I feel ill.

Wait a minute, I've just been cured of nail-biting. I feel the glory! Stallman is truly a saint!! All hail St. Ignucius!

And Linus Torvalds.

Oh wait, he's rude and publicly successful, a counter-example to this post. Oh well. All hail the post!

The submitted blog post is a humorous treatment of a topic studied in the scholarly literature.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=social+skills+gifted

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=social+adjustment+profou...

The submitted examples are almost frighteningly true-to-life. I gained perspective on social skills from travel. ("The whole object of travel is not to set foot on foreign land; it is at last to set foot on one's own country as a foreign land.") In my school days in the United States, I read a short story by Philip K. Dick that gave me and many of my contemporaries the idea that IQ difference between two persons is an unbridgeable social barrier. An expression of the same idea by a different author is "The child of 180 IQ has one of the most difficult problems of social adjustment that any human being is ever called upon to meet." But when I went to live in east Asia as I studied Chinese, I discovered that this view is largely confined to Western culture. Confucius said, "三人行，必有我師焉" ("where there are three persons walking, surely my teacher is among them") and expected to learn from anyone in his environment. Ancient Chinese culture didn't differ at all from ancient Western culture in noticing that people differ in ability, but it expected high-ability people to use their ability to get along with other people. That was a refreshing idea to me when I first heard of it. It's an idea I try to share with all my smartest friends in the West.

And of course Lewis Terman, developer of the first IQ test widely used in English-speaking schools, the Stanford-Binet test, wrote, "There are, however, certain characteristics of age scores with which the reader should be familiar. For one thing, it is necessary to bear in mind that the true mental age as we have used it refers to the mental age on a particular intelligence test. A subject's mental age in this sense may not coincide with the age score he would make in tests of musical ability, mechanical ability, social adjustment, etc. A subject has, strictly speaking, a number of mental ages; we are here concerned only with that which depends on the abilities tested by the new Stanford-Binet scales." (Terman & Merrill 1937, p. 25)

Update after noting a helpful comment by another participant: Yes, it can be helpful for learners who learn readily and find school easy when they are young to find other young people of similar ability to spend time with. That helps all those learners learn that they still have plenty to learn, and are likely to have opportunity to keep on learning from other people all their lives. School settings with underchallenging curricula in the interest of "self-esteem" and with prohibitions on ability grouping don't allow this valuable form of social learning. As Richard Rusczyk puts it, "If ever you are by far the best, or the most interested, student in a classroom, then you should find another classroom. Students of like interest and ability feed off of each other. They learn from each other; they challenge and inspire each other."

http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?pa...

The old One-Two or UPOD (Underpromise and Overdeliver) really works. But only for the first time.

A bit more semantic on "first time": It contiunes to work until the recipient actually begins to pay attention to who you are and what you're doing. At which point, the approach may need tweaking to retain efficacy.

Awkward 'smart' people could improve their prospects a great deal by not spending so much time thinking about how 'smart' they are, not to mention incessantly posting on-line about it.

I am still mildly horrified about how frequently discussions like this turn into thinly (or not so thinly) veiled self-praise... "oh, the reason I have such problems socially is because I'm so goddamn smart". Good luck with that, pal.

Here's a tip: Stop. Being. So. Fucking. Smug.

My experience with the 'smartest guy in the room' syndrome is that it seems to be most rife amongst people that haven't exactly been seeking out rooms full of smart (or smarter) people.

I notice most comments broadly support this message. Well, I think you are all stupid and wrong ;P (kidding!)

But I do believe there is a big difference between being humble, and being falsely humble.

I believe in being humble, to a point, but typically not in being falsely humble.

Being humble is generally good. Maybe you are better at maths than someone, or better at arguing logically. It is good to be humble, and to realise that even if you are smarter than someone in one dimension, they may still have plenty to teach you, and that there may still be a lot of worth to what they say. As a result, its a mistake to write off their beliefs, or to come out and perhaps tell them you are smarter 'overall'!

But I think its ethically problematic when you decide to 'one-two' other people, by deliberately downplaying your abilities.

The author is effectively saying "You know you are smarter - but you should hide that, so you can effectively manipulate others." I don't think this is a good attitude.

For one, I think it shows the very social cluelessness that the author is accusing others of.

Your human relationships should not be treated as if you were a spy behind enemy lines. If you think this is an appropriate framework with which to reason about your human relationships, you are doing something /very wrong/.

I think the attitude expressed in the blog post, is, frankly, condescending, manipulative, and very patronising to the people the author chooses to mislead.

If someone did that to me, I'd lose respect for them.

Now, I must make two things clear: While I think its good to strive for honesty in human relationships, obviously you have to take care for other peoples feelings. It is, of course, necessary, to give gentle feedback, or to sometimes leave things unsaid, for the greater good. But this should ideally be done with their interests in mind - not yours.

And sometimes - perhaps you are in a critical business context, where some one who genuinely is a moron in the ways that matter, and not a nice person, and is going to cause your company a lot of damage, unless you massage their ego - or perhaps you are, indeed, a spy; in which case it is necessary to use techniques like the authors 'one-two'.

But this should be used only when its unavoidable.

Its not a desirable state of affairs, and its not what we should aspire to in our interpersonal relationships.

If you build this culture in your startup, for example, you'll have a situation where people won't know they can trust each others opinions.

The author writes: >"Even after you know it was a lie, the false-humility still gives you warm feelings. Now when this guy later turns around and says "Aw, naw, not really; well, I guess kind of I dabble in the Ultimate Truth", I'll probably listen."

Well, I'd instantly be suspicious that whatever he was telling me about the ultimate truth, was to serve his own ends.

Be nice to people, definitely - but strive for honesty, and don't set out to manipulate.

I think you and the article may be operating on different areas of the stack. You're talking about how to live your life with integrity. It's a matter of policy, what should you do. The article is talking about if you do this, then people will react in this way. It's a matter of mechanism, how the world works. You can know the mechanics of how to win friends and influence people, but how you choose to use that knowledge is up to you.

It reminds me a bit of Machiavelli, which has since become a synonym for evil and dastardly deeds. But if you read The Prince, it's basically just a how-to manual for how to get and keep power. Machiavelli was writing for the Medicis, so it was assumed that they would want to stay in power. But questions about whether power was a good thing or not were out-of-scope for Machiavelli: he simply wrote about what one had to do if you wanted to gain power.

Also reminds me a bit of Feynman's views on technology and science, particularly the Manhattan Project. Feynman thought that technology was just a tool - it gives you the ability to do things you would otherwise be unable to, but it's up to you to decide whether you should do them. But wouldn't you rather have the ability to choose? It's the same with social hacks - you can do good things with them, you can do evil things, but at least you're aware of the effects of your actions.

>Your human relationships should not be treated as if you were a spy behind enemy lines. If you think this is an appropriate framework with which to reason about your human relationships, you are doing something /very wrong/.

I agree with you on this, but I think (or at least hope) the author's intended message was a bit different. If someone is going to be operating like a spy in the sense that they're lying to everyone around you to manipulate them into having the desired interaction with them, it is at best incredibly dishonest. I think the analogy the author used is a bit over the top, because where being a spy is about lying and using social interaction as the means to achieve your own ends, in the case of learning to be social, being social is its own end. If you scale back the analogy I think the takeaway is more along the lines of "you're out of place, fake it until you make it".

The blog post, overall completely misses the target and really is about becoming a "functional anti-social" rather than actually learning to be social. I don't think of this as a malicious article, its just written by someone who doesn't have the understanding necessary to give advice yet. Back when I forced myself to stop being an introvert I was often conflicted by the fact I felt like I was lying about who I was when I was just was biting my tongue or making an effort to talk to someone. The author seems to be of the mind that everything other than blurting out exactly what you're thinking is at the same level of acceptability, so you might as well run with it.

This post is ironic in that it's smug and insulting (though in a typically passive-aggressive way--few are ever direct with "you're ugly and stupid"), and without actually analyzing the beliefs of anyone who disagrees it lumps the "beliefs" into one category. Quotes like: "Great. Good luck with that. Oh, and by the way, your cause will die, I promise." and "I can hear your retort, oh ye smart and lonely." don't make me want to read further. False humility? Screw that. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/

As others have noted, this post has nothing to do with bad social skills. If you want to learn how to manipulate people, fine, and one could argue that's an aspect of social skills. Figuring out how to avoid awkward silences with people who aren't comfortable with them? Wondering how to invite people over to your home? Wondering what verbiage to use when asking someone out on a date? This post won't help you there.

http://www.succeedsocially.com/intellectual

was more helpful to me.

None of this nor the OP applies to me. Not just the smart part, but when I see the work awkward, I think of a different set of problems. I get along with people just fine and I'm not confrontational, but I can never really relax when I'm around people without an agenda because I don't know what I'm supposed to be talking about. That's what I'd hoped to read about.

I actually found some of that quite annoying. It described the behaviour of many intellectuals, and kind of inherently made it all out to be mistakes, like this: "They may have a mentality where it just feels 'wrong' to let a mistake slide. They may feel they just have to say something, and get a sense that they're restoring balance to the universe by sharing the Truth with others."

But who's to say it's not wrong to let a mistake slide? If everybody acted exactly as the author recommended nothing would ever get done...

I think what the article is saying is not that never correcting a mistake is bad, but that pointlessly correcting people about minor things in the wrong context can be annoying.

The article talks about the importance of being a spy, as it calls it, as a social skill. Another important facet of that is to realize that other people often act as spies, but don't mean any harm by it.

They'll say super nice things and say them over and over again and often not add any new useful facts or say anything outright. Throw in polite excuses and white lies where they won't actually say what is wrong or why they won't do something or where they'll say obvious lies that you aren't supposed to question. This makes it very difficult for someone who just wants all the facts on the table, feelings be dammed, so they can make a decision.

It can seem like the spies are lying manipulators, but their intention is often just to be friendly and get along with others. They consider being friendly more important than being factually correct.

Wait a second... there is something wrong with that One-Two.

One: Be self-deprecating!? Show you are weak and clueless? In short, a false image?

Two: Be brilliant, and prove you were being a dick with the first step.

Giving a false image, be it over valuing yourself or the opposite, knowingly, belong to the same category in my belief. It is the silent, humble, but brilliant opponent/partner that has my highest regards.

This should really be a wiki - tricks, techniques and shortcuts for all kinds of social situations for the autistically spectralized.

This is great advice for teachers also.

I have noticed that the best teachers I have encountered are masters of both self-deprecation and storytelling - generally mixed together.

When you subsequently get schooled by them, somehow you don't feel so beat up by the process.

...

"well, I guess kind of I dabble in the Ultimate Truth"

classic.

I'm surprised at all the light derision toward American Idol in this thread. I would think a show about average people putting themselves out in front of millions for a shot at something bigger would be appealing to people who hang out here.

No one has mentioned this book yet? It's what I expected this article to be like.

Being Geek: The Software Developer's Career Handbook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PUHbK9h-44

I used the one-two in my job applications. Cover letter that describes how I'm a high school drop-out who will probably od in a very near future, then a resume that blows the mind.

I once heard someone say something along the lines of "not accepting praise for being skilled isn't humility it's arrogance".

Know when you're good and accept a compliment don't feign being stupid.

Know when you're good and accept a compliment don't feign being stupid.

This is standard advice that I would readily accept in a Western cultural context. (For these purposes, HN is a Western cultural context, even though it has participants from all over the world.) But please note that in some cultures, declining compliments is not false modesty, but simply the standard form of politeness. For example, when speaking Chinese, if someone has just told me that I speak Chinese well (which would be a compliment, perhaps not deserved), the standard polite way for me to reply would be to say, "I speak Chinese poorly." The most striking example of this pattern of politeness, which extends not only to the speaker personally but to persons closely associated with the speaker, was when I met the Korean husband of a Korean woman who had been my classmate already for several months by the time I met her husband. The conversation, conducted in Chinese, consisted of some other person saying to him, "Your wife is quite beautiful," to which he replied, IN HER HEARING, "No, she is very ugly," contrary to fact, for politeness. If the cultural context is clear, everybody knows how to interpret such statements (with both the effusive praise and the denials by the praised persons being counted as conventional politeness) and no one is offended on either side.

That's quite interesting, a bit horrifying to anyone learning a new language which I guess shows knowing a language doesn't mean knowing the culture.

I'm always worried about hand gestures now I have to make sure I know the code of the culture.

I guess I'm not as socially awkward as I'd thought. Within 5 minutes of meeting most people I've decided that they're idiots(usually they don't try to hide it) but I'm smart enough to keep my opinions to myself. There are two reasons why: First, I realize telling people that they're wrong and exactly why isn't likely to inspire anything but contempt; and more importantly, I understand that when you argue with an idiot you don't lift the idiot up, they drag you down. So why bother? Perhaps this blogger isn't smarter than everyone else, he's just a dick and isn't self aware of his condition.

Anyone feeling socially awkward should read Dale Carnegie

State Space Dimensions: intelligence, social skills, hard work, honesty 1.)most folks are lazy and anti - hard work because of 'learned helplessness. Your car is stuck on ice. so you spin your tires and create more water and ice.

2.)not smart enough to program? can't get a job? then, cheat and avoid honesty.

3.)make up for it in social skills. Be everybody's BEST FRIEND like the politicians. shake hands, kiss babies.

4.)Be intelligent. Keep asking tough questions and studying.

Alas, the world, especially in the U.S.A. is anti-intellgectual and ANTI-intelligence. so the stags are: 1.)intelligence and NOT honest. - pretend to be surprised at how good you are. 2.)intelligence and social skills. Great career as actor or politican. Manipulate others, so that others share your strong mind. quote: Star Wars: These are NOT the droids you are looking for.

3.)intelligence and hard work. Pretend to be lazy and even sloppy. Obviously, never talk about religion and politics. Get elected, win the lottery and make BIG MONEY, with no hard work. The girl is NOT interested in how ou REWIRED HER CAR for hands free music or diagnosed the subtle vacuum leak via computer codes. SHE LOVES THAT YOU HAND WAXED the car, so she can show it off to her friends.

Nice that the girl knows you are working on 'the next big thing to google's pagerank algol.' SO WHAT! The real estate broker (who dropped out of high school) charms her with his BIG ROLL OF CASH.

For you younger geeks aka awkward smarty pants. Get the small onsulting gig/contract with WALL STREET, New York City. Gals love an I-banker - investment banker. or in LA its the same as FOREIGN FILM DIRECTOR to actresses.

arrogant? or being honest? abrasive and judgemental? or being provacative, and analytical-critical?

School is weak and often irrelevant. Read some of the PhD thesis (my hobby) online. some garbage and some DRIVEL.

criticism often is just speaking TRUTH. Einstein and a few folks I know (maybe me) have corrected teachers with their WRONG and INACCURATE questions.

Many of the SAT exams have AMBIGUOUS questions, so theoretically there is a score above the top score of 800. This means YOU ARE SMARTER than the rules/exam!

Somewhere along the line of my life, I sacrificed some smartness for social skills. I am glad I did when I read some things on here.

Did I offended someone? I developed my social skills around 15/16. Before that I was set to be socially awkward and I was quite shy. I put my self in situations were I could mature socially - which I did. My grades dropped because I wasn't studying all the time but I am glad of it.

I read things here like "I'm not sure when to wave", "How do I leave a conversation?" etc. Those things are natural to me now.

Are you still consider smart if you cannot recognize social cues, Or are you just a gifted savant?

Yesterday I was thinking about exactly same thing, and buuum here I go :). Thanks!

The smartest man in the room is a fool if he makes others look foolish.

-Ancient Chinese proverb

Source? I can't find it on Google.

Probably ancient China.

Learn how to accommodate/appreciate adverse/diverse people.

Two points: 1) "Smart" people should be able to figure this out. 2) Great answer to "What does it feel like to be the smartest person in the room? I'm in the wrong room."

Neologism alert:

"Doing this in the wrong way Schrutes your whole mission. Doing this in the right way makes you Ani Difranco, or Bob Dylan."

Thanks! I know this stuff, but i keep forgetting. :)

The problem isn't with intelligence, it's the fact that gifted kids are often left in average classrooms rather than placed among their peers. Everyone is liable to develop awkward social habits if they grow up outside their peer group, regardless of how intelligent they are.

Also, a lot of the traits people mention when talking about smart, awkward people are common signs of Asperger's...

In my experience I haven't seen much link between gifted students being with their peers and their social awkwardness.

I knew people in the program at my school, as well as several kids who qualified for it but their parents kept them in the regular stream. There were awkward and non-awkward people in each category. The biggest determinant seemed to be what their personality and interests were already like going in.

Meh. This "one-two" thing seems disingenuous. It's good to be slightly self-deprecating in the sense of knowing what you don't know and having a sense of humor, but presenting oneself as an idiot is just dumb. I think it's best to take the attitude of, "I'm good, but this person might be smarter, or at least know something I'd benefit to learn".

What I think smart people could be better at is separating stupid ideas from stupid people. Most smart people have stupid ideas on occasion, and I've certainly had my share. It happens.

I wish I could agree with you here, but there's a lot of distrust of smart people especially in some parts of the US. If you are immediately and obviously smart, some people will tend to think you will use your intelligence to trick or manipulate them or that you have a hidden agenda.

It's unfortunate, but it does make sense to view someone more intelligent than you with a little bit of suspicion if they're trying to persuade you of something. The reason is that if they're trying to trick you, they have a head start due to the disparity in intelligence. Of course, someone with superior social skills is even more dangerous in that sense.

Disarm. Don't be an ass. Be weak. Be self-deprecating. Build Ethos.

Bullshit. Building ethos has nothing to do with playing it down. As long as you do and talk only what you are sure and confident of and politely abstain from what you are not. Then you have disarmed and conquered.

Ethos is your projection on other people. And self-depreciation is not a way to impress other people. It shows that you are insecure and frankly, dumb. A smart person never points out his weaknesses, you may show that you are vulnerable - but any kind of drama ruins it.

There are countless strategies for social interaction. But none of the winning entail hiding in the corner and weeping.

I think "be weak" only meant "be humble", or to put it another way, don't make a show of strength.

Also, I think by ethos he meant https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ethos#Rhetori...

But one can be courteous and gentle and strong at the same time. A gentleman if you will. Humility is for peasants not for those whom they aspire towards.

And this is exactly the ethos I am talking about. Doing anything self-deprecating is hurting your value proposition if you will. Thus one must strive to appear powerful, yet abstain from insulting the observers. Humility has nothing to do with winning peoples respect - quite the contrary.

Based on your comment here, and your comments on other posts, I think you're among the target audience of this post.

huh? Would you care to explain what I did wrong? I chose to disagree with one of the points of the blog. And I chose so because it is incredibly bad advice. If you have problem with the tone of my opinion - I have to say that advice was incredibly lousy and thus the tone of my comment reflects that.

The biggest problem audience like HN's (a lot of smart and socially awkward people) has is the one of lack of self promotion skills. These people are already too humble and too weak.

What you might misconceive of me is - that I am not commenting here for self-promotion. I am commenting here to share my knowledge and to receive feedback - just like yours. So from my viewpoint I am trying to increase S/N ratio by cutting down on courteousness. I can afford to do that since most of HN audience is well educated enough to know that opinions are ones own and thus know not to take things personally.

Also another strategy I use is the one of provocation. The provocation aimed at the kind of person I am hoping to entice here - leads to a more frank and to the point debate. The side cost is that there is a lot of emotion intermixed - but the sought information is usually still there. So while some people tend to exchange niceities and shallow conversation amongst wide circle of people - I want to hear opinions from people who have them.

I don't have a problem with your tone. What I suspect, though, is that based on the message you're trying to convey, you might be the target of the author.

"So from my viewpoint I am trying to increase S/N ratio by cutting down on courteousness. I can afford to do that since most of HN audience is well educated enough to know that opinions are ones own and thus know not to take things personally."

One of the points that the article is attempting to communicate is that different people need different approaches. You yourself said that most of the HN audience know not to take things personally, which implies you understand that this is not the case for other people. Cutting down on courteousness may be acceptable in HN, but it won't work for most other people.

"As long as you do and talk only what you are sure and confident of and politely abstain from what you are not. Then you have disarmed and conquered."

And this is what the article attempted to explain - just because you know what you are talking about and other don't, it doesn't mean others will willingly buy into what you're saying. It doesn't mean you have "disarmed and conquered".

Indeed, I completely agree with you.

In rhetoric there are three fundamental persuasion vectors. Logos - reason and logic; Pathos - emotion and subconsciousness and Ethos - appearance, charisma and social background. Pathos and Ethos are the most powerful ones - and thus every advertisement and every (successful) piece of propaganda is short on logic and reason and extremely long on emotion and appeal to authority. That is why geeks are lousy marketers and communicators. Because they are trying to convince people that their offering is rational and logical decision - but people don't care much about what makes sense.

So to respond to you - what you're saying is less important than the conviction with which it is conveyed. When have you heard or seen Steve Jobs act vulnerable and self-deprecating? That would be the single biggest mistake he could do. People are social animals and we are good at spotting insecurities - thus one does not point out his weaknesses out of his own accord. Should others notice them - you confirm them (Yes its there...) but you never expand on that.

My suggestion of talking and doing only what you are confident about is actually a trick about how to make oneself appear a figure of wisdom and authority far beyond one's true abilities. A person with great Ethos know very well when to speak and when to shut ones trap.

This is a comment I made.

This is a reply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com