How Studying Body Language Changed the Way I Socialize

I definitely sympathize with this. I used to be (and to some extent still am) the sort of person who would get in a lot of social trouble for being too blunt about things, or for focusing on results rather than social niceties. But I’ve come to realize that in order to really value merit and honesty, good communication skills are a prerequisite. I’m going to focus on the second issue, since I think the merit issue is clearer. (There’s a reason we value languages other than assembly, and people like Bill Nye.)

If you want to be honest, you must first learn communication skills. It is impossible to communicate honestly if you can’t communicate.

Languages do not inherently contain meaning. The only reason we are able to speak and understand each other in English is because there is a social consensus that certain words and phrases mean certain things. If you try to speak to someone who isn’t part of that social consensus (because they speak only a different language, say), your words are meaningless.

Therefore, if you say some words to people, and every time they invariably interpret your words as meaning, “This person is socially aggressive and is disagreeing with me as a power play”, then that is what those words mean. It is almost entirely irrelevant that you intended them to mean, “It is my objective analysis that your plan is bad.”

Since you probably don’t believe, “I want to make a power play on this person”, you are accidentally being dishonest by stating your opinion the way you did. If you want to communicate, “I think your plan is a bad one, and that we ought to try something different”, then you must put in the effort to actually learn how to communicate that.

To take a concrete example, say a friend were to invite you to a movie. The movie is quite bad, and you have a variety of criticisms of it. At the end of the night, your friend asks, “So what did you think?” If you wish to communicate, “I thought it was a bad movie”, you cannot scowl and say, “Typical hollywood tripe.” That would accidentally be dishonest, because you would be communicating, “I’m in a bad mood, and quite possibly angry at you. Also, I’m completely uninterested in your opinion.” Instead, you might try something like smiling and saying, “Oh, it was exactly as terrible as I was expecting. I’m already composing my facebook take-down in my head. What did you think?” This more honestly communicates, “I found the movie lacking, but I’m in a good mood and glad we spent time together.” (Alternatively, if you do happen to be in a bad mood, it’s probably not because of the movie. So you might look thoughtful and say, “Well, I thought it was pretty mediocre, but I’ve been in a bad mood recently anyway, because of X, so I might just be being unfair.”)

It is possible to spar, disagree with, criticize, part ways etc amicably and all the while being nice. I've seen people like that, it is not an easy skill to learn though

But is someone telling you their exact feelings at that moment really honesty? If everyone were completely honest with each other, the world would be a vastly different place.

Let's say you invite a co-worker out to lunch. He doesn't like you. He could either say, "I don't like you," or "I'm busy."

In your world, he would be straightforward about his feelings and tell you he doesn't like you. This kind of communication injures egos and causes hostility and friction. It makes for an unpleasant work environment.

Instead when he says, "I'm busy," you don't know if he was really busy or he doesn't like you. He may even say, "I'd love to go out to lunch with you, but I'm busy. So sorry. Let's do it another time."

So you ask him again the next day. He's busy again. You ask him again the day after. Still busy. He never asks you out to lunch and never makes an effort with you.

Now what you have here is a truly honest signal. His actions are an honest signal. His words are bullshit. Everyone's words are bullshit. People will lie to themselves under social pressure and act like they are interested. But a person's actions don't lie.

>"Perking up" when another person's uncomfortable emotions come to the fore and steering the conversation away teaches them that their problems are their own, and that their full selves are excluded while a partial self (with unpleasantness filtered out) is welcome.

I suspect that the author meant this in non-intimate situations, however I agree with your general trend of reasoning. These types of people are comforting to the extreme, I would assume that would (technically) make them satisfying friends and lovers. I'd love to see a clarification of your use of unsatisfying here.

I don't think "fake niceness", empty compliments, and subterfuge are tenets of empathy or what the author was trying to express.

The author provides this example interaction:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: They're okay.

Where you might have implied that the author is saying it should've happened like this:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: Yeah, they rule!

I think the author and the case for empathy were thinking along the lines of something more like this:

    Person A: I like this band.
    Person B: Have you ever seen them live? (Begin convo fork into live shows
                you've both seen. Share experiences.)
              

That's how you build value and connect with people.

"They're okay" is not honesty. There's no virtue in arbitrary judgement that does nothing but punish people for revealing their joys to you. It just squanders the opportunity where a connection could've been made.

I think empathetic social skills very much encompass the appreciation of honesty, and connecting with the emotional state of others does require self-control over your own state.