Rules of good social skills (2025)
liamrosen.com
liamrosen.com
Addendum rather than correction - neurodivergent and or introvert behaviour may differ - I'm AuDHD and e.g. "body language breaking rapport" doesn't mean I'm no longer interested and neither does "shifting eyes" -- that's my default behaviour which takes extreme amount of unsustainable energy to break for short targeted periods of time -- if my body language are engaged and I'm looking in your eyes, I'm probably not hearing what you're saying as all my CPU cycles are peak multithreading to control my body :).
I think the list is like PMP - read, then evaluate customize and implement portions as feasible for your specific situation.
This also came up when trying EMDR in a mental health setting, where you're supposed to follow the therapist's pointer with your eyes while thinking about past events. I found that I couldn't think about anything else except making sure my eyes were following the pointer; directing my gaze took up all the available mental bandwidth.
I know this because years ago I saw an interview with Ken Griffin (hedge fund billionaire). He does a lot of interview and makes intense, enduring eye contact[0]. Juxtapose that to someone like Jaime Diamond who also gives a good many interviews but takes breaks/pauses to look away.
So after seeing the video, I tried making conversation with people while looking directly at one eye or the other. And at first I found myself paralyzed and barely able to keep focus on my train of thought. Eventually I was able to get a bit more comfortable doing it, but it required a great deal of effort. And anecdotally I found that the people I spoke to were more likely to look away the longer I kept the eye contact.
I also read something once that resonated, though I can't speak to how accurate it is. The idea is that when people are more introverted or discussing a technical topic, they tend to look away while speaking, then make eye contact to signal that it is the listener's turn to talk. Me staring at my shoes while I concentrate on conveying accurate information, then looking at the listener to see if my words made any sense at all. :-)
When people are more extroverted or on a less technical topic, there is a tendency to make eye contact while speaking, then look away when it is the listeners turn to respond. Perhaps to judge how things are landing as they are speaking?
If this is true one can see how it would lead to misunderstandings. An introvert thinking "This salesperson is making eye contact, but they just keep talking. Why are they so overbearing?" Or an extrovert thinking "This person is telling me terrorists are going to strike the World Trade Center, but they won't even make eye contact. Why do they have so little confidence?"
Anyway, like many signalling mechanisms, I'm sure there is variety across people and cultures.
In voiceover, where you have to read rather than memorize most scripts, some percentage of your available bandwidth visually processes the words that you must look at. This causes issues for the majority of talent, and significant issues for a minority of talent. Part of the issue is a compulsion to keep speaking words due to a feeling that they seem to be pushing at you and piling up.
I find it to be rather common that concrete advice on social skills or other life skills called "neurotypical" if it doesn't explicitly hedge for reasons that people might not be able to apply it, when the authors are frequently writing about things they personally struggled with.
The foundation of American improv theater came out of socializing games developed by Neva Boyd at Hull House in Chicago and her student Viola Spolin, published in Spolin's book, Improvisation for the Theater. These games rely on attuning to the faces of others and what they say and do. One's spontaneous, untutored reactions are the source of creativity and fun.
I will testify here that the social engagement practices in improv games have done more for me in being able to spontaneously respond and connect with others than decades of (otherwise valuable) therapy and growth practices.
Computer Science majors at Northeastern University had a required theater class called "The Eloquent Presenter" when I was there that largely consisted of improv games. Some students dreaded it, but my cohort was largely fun and very low anxiety compared to the other required courses.
There was one exercise in particular that broke people, sometimes to tears. The class sat along the wall with the professor sitting at the far end from a door that the student being examined would enter through. That student would walk toward the center of the room, stop, and present themselves to the class, "Hi my name is X". The professor would then critique the subtle mannerisms of the person - their walk was too hasty, they spoke too quietly, they shuffled their feet, etc. The student then walked back out the door and repeated the exercise, until the professor approved their performance.
Some students repeated the introduction a dozen or more times (a few cried at this point), some passed on the first attempt.
I remember many of my classmates hating this process, but the more I reflect the more I believe it was genius to make us experience that extreme social awkwardness. Real life, and I believe real success, exists in the interactions between ourselves and others.
I believe these are called threat acclimation experiences. They are probably super valuable. I should do more.
And now the Internet Archive is down, too. (edit: IA is back up!)
Well, here are the rules in tweet form: https://x.com/Liface/status/1947973950065066037
https://coldewey.cc/2026/08/on-oscar-wildes-phrases-and-phil...
2010 Reddit was like this, to the point I’d feel I was incurring an opportunity cost if I didn’t read it. Today it’s a sewage pile.
I suspect most people desperately trying to hang on to it, except with those they are good friends with. Unless they want out of a conversation. Although i may be projecting here.
later, when going out with friends, if i ask "where should we go to talk", and you suggest someplace obviously loud and not great for conversation, this could be seen as a mild form of misunderstanding something i communicated previously about a personal preference in a given situation: breaking rapport
For example, suppose you're at a party, talking in depth about a football team's season and they say something unrelated like "Oh by the way have you seen John?". It is usually a polite way to try to wrap up a conversation. A polite response would be something that graciously gives them permission to change the subject or leave, for example, "I think I saw him outside, maybe go take a look?".
Sometimes it takes the form of bored body language and sentences that don't lead the conversation onwards, e.g. "Yeah that's crazy" or "Well, what can you do...". In that scenario I like to give the conversation a respectable death, e.g. "Well, all we can do is hope for a better season in 2027!".
Some cues include the person physically squaring up to you front to front instead of being at an angle to you. Another cue could be touching you on the shoulder or forearm. For me the most obvious tell is that they are laughing or giggling.
Breaking rapport means the other person wants to disengage without offending you. I usually make the excuse I need to take a breather.
See my root-level comment about potentially different behaviour and semantics for neurodivergent :).
> If making references that are outside someone’s context, do so only if they signal themselves as a curious person, and make them come from a place of genuine interest in informing, rather than bragging.
This is something I struggle with when talking to new people. How much to lean towards introducing them to things they don't know but may find interesting versus not wanting them to feel like an outsider or dumb by bringing up stuff they don't know.
Paying attention to how they signal their curiosity and sense of safety is a good way to gauge that.
edit: by talk maybe i mean "speak" but I don't mean it to sound quite so harsh/jaded.. Just how most people seem to work until you know them better.
expanded my conversational awareness.
(That said, it is hard to do in a heated conversation, so you actually have to practice and have the main ideas of the book committed to memory.)
I also make a point to make it 100% about them. Don't worry about being perceived the wrong way, saying the wrong thing, etc. That's part of being human. If you fuck up, you fuck up. Realizing that more or less removed any anxiety I had around talking to people (especially when I'd rather be behind a keyboard).
Edit: people are like spiders; they're more afraid of you than you are of them.
Most people just want to get along, so it’s still a valuable list as is.
I've encountered many Romanians where I live (in all walks of society). I used to always point out I'd seen the movie (Mihai Viteazul).[1]
It never built any kind of connection with them.
Years later, I found out that most Romanians outside of Romania either hate their country, or at least have enough bad memories they want to forget it. For good reason! Bringing up this movie was not a point of connection.
[1] I've not found any proof, but I will swear that Braveheart is just a copy of this movie, adapted to Scotland.
For example, let someone know that there's something in their teeth, their bag is partially unzipped, or they're too close to a 'wet paint' sign. But DON'T tell someone that they have a hole in their sweater, their hair is really messed up, they are wrong about some choice they made from a personal story that they just finished.
Of course there is additional nuance like nothing graphic/sexual. And it's ok to offer to help the person fix the thing, but don't simply do it yourself without first getting consent. Context is key but the rule of 30seconds is a good one.
It probably works.
This is a great list. I didn't disagree with a single point. Some of those lessons took me far too many years to learn myself.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting "early on." I guess their point holds for the first 500 words or so.
>Very neurotypical coded article.
Does this mean that this article doesn't cater to those who are neurodivergent? It almost seems like this would be most valuable to those who aren't well equipped in social situations, like many neurodivergent people.
Are you referring to the way it is written? The subject matter? The specific recommendations?
>Many of these points are rather harsh and invalid.
I can kind of get invalid (I think it's best to assume each of these requires nuance and aren't universal rules you can blindly follow), but what about any of these are harsh?
I feel that they are perhaps overgeneralizing their own neuro-atypical mental models to all neuro-atypical people, but at the very least I take it as "I am not neurotypical and I don't want anyone following these rules when interacting with me" :)