
A Rough Guide to Social Skills for Awkward Smart People - KennethMyers
http://techno-anthropology.blogspot.com/2011/04/rough-guide-to-social-skills-for.html
======
giberson
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.

~~~
stuntgoat
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.

~~~
johnnyjustice
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

------
citricsquid
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)?

~~~
michaelochurch
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.

~~~
eitland
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.

~~~
michaelochurch
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.

------
Hawramani
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.

~~~
wallflower
> 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.

------
Psyonic
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.

~~~
cageface
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.

------
lloeki
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.

------
Gaussian
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.

~~~
entangld
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.

------
erikb
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.

------
jwuphysics
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.

~~~
sp332
CMU? 50th percentile? Congratulations on finding a community of people who are
amazing enough to make you look normal :)

~~~
jwuphysics
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 :(

~~~
asrk
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.

~~~
jwuphysics
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.

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

------
mrleinad
Please, someone send this to Richard Stallman, fast.

~~~
s00pcan
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?

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

~~~
marshray
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!

------
tokenadult
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...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=social+adjustment+profoundly+gifted)

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...](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?page=calculustrap)

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

~~~
Shamiq
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.

------
onan_barbarian
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.

------
feral
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.

~~~
nostrademons
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.

------
Jach
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.

------
aj700
<http://www.succeedsocially.com/intellectual>

was more helpful to me.

~~~
lhnz
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...

~~~
ChrisMac
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.

------
lnanek
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.

------
shuaib
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.

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

------
solarlion
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.

------
mkr-hn
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.

------
s00pcan
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>

------
mannicken
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.

------
dhughes
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.

~~~
tokenadult
_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.

~~~
dhughes
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.

------
daimyoyo
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.

------
k7d
Anyone feeling socially awkward should read Dale Carnegie

------
compuerase38278
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!

------
nametoremember
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.

~~~
nametoremember
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.

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

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

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

-Ancient Chinese proverb

~~~
lhnz
Source? I can't find it on Google.

~~~
westicle
Probably ancient China.

------
known
Learn how to accommodate/appreciate adverse/diverse people.

------
pbreit
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."

------
pw
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."

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

------
rkon
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...

~~~
ChrisMac
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.

------
michaelochurch
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.

~~~
Zak
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.

------
JanezStupar
_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.

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

~~~
JanezStupar
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.

~~~
hrabago
_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".

~~~
JanezStupar
_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._

Indeed, I completely agree with you.

 _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"._

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.

------
tkahn6
This is a comment I made.

~~~
throwaway1818
This is a reply.

