One of the often repeated pearls of wisdom from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie, is people like to talk about themselves and they’ll like you more if you let them do that in a conversation. I’m paraphrasing. This research seems to counter that. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influ...
Another pearl of his is to be "profuse in your praise". Even if it risks sounding empty or pure flattery, because it always leaves a good impression and works.
Honestly people who do this make me super uncomfortable.
Yes, people with diarrhea of the mouth make most conversations dry, one-sided, and very dull after you already know what that person's side of the story is. It's much worse if that side of the story is self-serving. That is a good analogy with throwing a ball in the conversation. Imagine ball sports where only one person is participating. That's what a one-sided conversation feels like.
I find the most frustrating conversations are with people who can't stop talking and who fail to distinguish what is or isn't important information for other people in the conversation. > How was your flight? > Oh it was great, I sat next to a man named Joe Smoe, wait no I think his name was Joe Blow... no he said his name was Jim Blow... wait no his name was Jim Smoe... he said he was bus driver.. or was it a truck…
I say, “it’s okay, I’m not going to remember their name anyway.” Usually it gets them to move on.
"Contrary to people’s forecasts, they were more likable the more they spoke, and their partners formed global rather than differentiated impressions." In my experience, reticence to talk is mostly about fear of saying something stupid, which generally happens when you don't have anything to say but your trying to say something. Assigning people to talk for abitrary portions of the conversation might just cause you to…
Asking questions is a form of talking. If you’re afraid of saying something stupid, why not just admit that the topic is outside your knowledge, and ask questions about what they’re telling you?
I didn’t see the whole paper, but I wonder if the idea is really to be engaged in the conversation.
One of the often repeated pearls of wisdom from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie, is people like to talk about themselves and they’ll like you more if you let them do that in a conversation. I’m paraphrasing. This research seems to counter that. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influ...
I find the conversations can be awkward if you go too far in that direction. And it can feel like an interview. The best conversations are give and take where both sides talk almost an equal amount of time
Some of my most enjoyable conversations have been pretty uneven, where the subject is of mutual interest, but one person knows much more than the other. If my conversation partner knows way more than me about the subject, I want them to talk way more, and if I know way more, it's OK if the other person doesn't do 50% of the talking, but keeps inviting me to continue, or gently steers the conversation to areas of particular interest.
I've also experienced this and I've mentioned it in comments here in the past. I once recommended the book to a (former) colleague and it was maddening to talk to this person after they finished it. FWIW, I'm also always on edge when I talk to someone who I know has read the Rosenberg non-violent communication book(s), so it's not just the books or it's contents but a certain personality type, I guess.
Wouldn't the unnatural thing be a phase? Consciously practicing something is awkward almost by definition. But then hopefully you internalize it and become more natural and fluent in your application.
I'm sure that's true for some people. What's also true is that some people actively seek out ways to manipulate others and these 2 books in particular can be misconstrued as blueprints to achieve that end.
"Contrary to people’s forecasts, they were more likable the more they spoke, and their partners formed global rather than differentiated impressions." In my experience, reticence to talk is mostly about fear of saying something stupid, which generally happens when you don't have anything to say but your trying to say something. Assigning people to talk for abitrary portions of the conversation might just cause you to…
Your experience agrees with my experience of myself. Growing up I was the youngest child in our family friend group and particularly had an older sibling who basically bullied me - I learned to be reticent to speak and was definitely afraid of saying something stupid. When I got a little older (in high school) I eventually got curious about how so many of my peers seemed to converse easily without fear of saying anyt…
Did this realization eventually help you get rid of that internal self-critical voice?
An overview of the paper by the author: https://theconversation.com/people-think-they-should-talk-le...
Does it have the full text? It’s a good journal but there have been many methods problems in psychology research. It strikes me as a finding that would be very sensitive to sample issues and other potential confounds.
You were right on this one. The conclusions here seem... weak, on a number of different axes (participation pool = undergraduates, topics of discussion, conversations lasting 7 minutes only, seemingly small effect sizes).
Profuse praise is so weird and off-putting to be a recipient of. I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe this was true however many years ago but it doesn't feel true all the time today.
The man who gave that advice also paired it with being authentic: "Give honest and sincere appreciation." That advice was actually given in the context of a supervisor or superior working to improve a report: 'Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise.”' So in context, its about noticing the things you as a person like about people and voca…
Nothing spikes my anxiety like when my supervisor out of nowhere starts to praise little things that don't matter (especially when the thing being praised is not new and has not changed).
Because you know they took the compliment sandwich advice to heart, and the other shoe is about to drop.
Another pearl of his is to be "profuse in your praise". Even if it risks sounding empty or pure flattery, because it always leaves a good impression and works.
I wonder if this works because true-ringing praise has to be about the particular person, and the production of it demonstrates that you're paying (sole) attention to them, and the attention is what causes them to enjoy the interaction, not necessarily the praise itself. If so, "active listening" might produce the same results.
I mean, i suspect its because true ringing praise doesn't come with strings. Inauthentic praise is often used as a strategy to manipulate someone into doing what you want.
As with everything else, it seems, my anecdotal experience suggests a balance is usually the best overall answer. People with diarrhea of the mouth aren't much fun to talk to, but either are people who won't say more than three words at a time. Same with what you talk about. People like to talk about themselves, but many of them are interested in hearing about you too. Just keep it under control, and lob that convers…
> As with everything else, it seems, my anecdotal experience suggests a balance is usually the best overall answer.
And my anecdotal evidence says I want the three words person if I'm going fishing. And I want the verbal diarrhea as a wing man so I have an easy out if things get creepy or dull.
Maybe it's more about context than always meeting in the middle.