101–110 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step One: Eye contact (sustained) Step Two: "Hello!" Step Three:
I'd move "sustained" to after the Hello", otherwise it's creepy staring.
What you're trying to do is establish that the eye contact is not incidental; "solid" may be a better word that "sustained".
If someone is unwilling to hold eye contact with you, they are unwilling to talk. That's the test you're trying to run.
I mean, I often write about underrated creators on sites like YouTube, and while there's definitely some semblance of a correlation between marketing effort and success, it's very much a minor one overshadowed by a lot of other things. I know plenty of people who worked far harder than I ever could, and ended up struggling with only a few followers as well as people who seemingly just lucked into success purely from one random friend having existing popularity.
And I suspect it's similar outside of the internet too. There's a correlation between open mindedness and trying hard and promoting yourself and success, but it's not an absolute one and often overshadowed by a lot of other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step One: Eye contact (sustained) Step Two: "Hello!" Step Three:
Step one is crucial if you can’t take rejections lightly. However, a lot of people are shy and they tend to look away. I’d say just man up and skip it. But do know when to stop if the other party isn’t reciprocating either through lack of interest or body language.
If someone isn't making _actual_ eye contact with you, they're not open to being talked to. Simple as that.
If you're good enough at reading body language and talking to random people that this advice doesn't seem true.... this is probably not advice that you need. If you're like me and couldn't figure out how to determine this through other means - or are rather fearful of intruding - well, it's a real handy rubric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I take it as a design question. Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible? One time, on a crowded train, an elderly lady just started talking about her visit to her lovely grandchildren and what they had been up to since her last visit. It wasn't a short story and to her it was the most fascinating experience…
> She kept staring at him and kept telling him to just go away, go be miserable some place else, don't expect us to share your misery From my experience it’s females are more likely to use this argumentation to marginalize the enemy - “nobody wants you, you are alone, go away loser”, etc. Someone might not want to share your misery some time in the future, elderly lady.
This is actually a very interesting article. And with the risk of attracting the wrath on internet haters, let me propose something that personally helped me a lot and which seems like a very narrow application of the principles described in the article: meeting romantic partners. I tend to be more open in talking to strangers and that has opened up worlds of opportunities to me. But the biggest benefit has certainly…
This is actually a very interesting article. And with the risk of attracting the wrath on internet haters, let me propose something that personally helped me a lot and which seems like a very narrow application of the principles described in the article: meeting romantic partners. I tend to be more open in talking to strangers and that has opened up worlds of opportunities to me. But the biggest benefit has certainly…
Chatting up a stranger is not 'borderline harassment'. Harassment is harassment. There's a correct way to approach someone in a non-threatening manner, and more men should take the time to learn how to respectfully strike up conversation with strangers (in both romantic and non-romantic contexts) Given the cultural norms around dating require men to initiate the conversation 95%+ of the time, there's a real risk of d…
I'm skeptical of a definition of luck where you can be trained to be lucky. That's not luck, that's skill. There is no skill to luck by definition. But let's take what we've got here and engage with it: >She came up with a few basic strategies for parents to teach their kids, including being open to new experiences, learning to relax, maintaining social connections, and (yes) talking to strangers. All of these techni…
I think the most important part of the article: "You lose your peripheral vision the more anxious you are because your flight-or-fight mechanism creates binocular vision." Kids growing up in chaotic situations are likely to be very anxious, and will have so much more to worry about. So I think you are right to an extent, that the real luck is growing up in a more stable situation. What makes it worse, is that being t…
If you can go to "luck school", you're privileged. What a scam
Maybe those unlucky people you have in mind, once they make it out of their misery, will wonder what to do, and find themselves interested in going to luck school.
Ultimately, it sounds as if when you are not privileged, under no circumstances should you try anything that could change your luck. If it would work, it would prove that you were never underprivileged to begin with, which is a big no no. Self defeating logic at its best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it depends on what version of the social contact you think we're all operating with. I'd say the quite minor inconvenience of someone ahead of you in line trying to start a conversation is part of what you sign up for when you go out in public. That is, as long as the initiator is prepared to take the hint when it's clear you don't want to talk.
I take it as a design question. Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible? One time, on a crowded train, an elderly lady just started talking about her visit to her lovely grandchildren and what they had been up to since her last visit. It wasn't a short story and to her it was the most fascinating experience…
How about a society designed to allow people to choose the level of interaction they want dynamically?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I take it as a design question. Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible? One time, on a crowded train, an elderly lady just started talking about her visit to her lovely grandchildren and what they had been up to since her last visit. It wasn't a short story and to her it was the most fascinating experience…
> Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible? Personally I would prefer the first one. Like most of people in here, I'd risk a guess. On the other hand I don't think it's good to have people like your "elderly lady" just casually imposing themselves on a train full of others. There's a balance in everything.
Setting the standard that telling people about your day or telling them about yourself is "imposing" is exactly the kind of thinking that's producing our society where nobody ever has a real conversation unless it's via introduction by a third party and an app first.