
The Four Levels of Social Entrapment - SandB0x
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/09/four-levels-of-social-entrapment.html
======
Tycho
Don't forget level five: being invited to social functions with people you
don't know very well. Not only are you not in the comfort of your own home,
not in control of the situation, and not able to make amusing conversation,
but now a large group of people bear witness to your interpersonal epicfail
and once the conversation runs dry may find yourself simply sitting in silence
listening to whatever racket is being played (usually very loud) in the
background, frozen in your seats, preserved in awkwardness like some sort of
distasteful museum exhibit.

~~~
potatolicious
"So... how's about that local sports team?"

In my experience people _know_ what it is like to be stuck as "that guy" in
such a situation, and they've all had to endure the Awkward Silence(tm), and
they're cool with it. Let them toss you a lifeline - I find that directly
exposing the awkwardness of the situation gets a few ironic laughs and also
gives you the excuse to completely diverge from the previous conversation
path.

Awkward Silences(tm) happen, people know they happen. The trick is that if you
let it bother you, people around you will let it bother them (and their
perception of you). The only solution is to barge right on through it as if
you don't care.

------
mburney
This kind of "awkwardness" is felt as a result of being stuck in your head.
It's only awkward if you're worried about making a mistake. But you can relax,
you're allowed to make mistakes. No one except you really cares if you said
something stupid or rude or pointless.

~~~
Confusion

      No one except you really cares if you said something [..] rude 
    

I don't think that's true and I think that it shows that you have never
actually broken off an unwanted conversation by being honest. If you do that
and, for instance, say "I'm sorry, but this conversation really doesn't
interest me", people _will_ feel insulted. You are forced to beat around the
bush.

    
    
      [or] stupid or pointless
    

The fact that you yourself care about those is enough. You don't want to feel
forced to say stupid or pointless things.

There are two ways out:

1) Be interested in what people have to say about certain subjects and steer
the conversation there. Those subjects have to be general enough that everyone
has something to say about them. Sometimes you turn out to be annoying, for
instance when you are cross-examining someone about why they are happy with
their lives.

2) Accept the fact that people will think you're weird or an asshole. Me, I
just stay silent when there's nothing left to say. There's nothing wrong with
silence. When the silence lasts long enough, I turn around and walk.

------
edkennedy
The article plays off the insecurities of others in their belief that they are
imposing on others by being social. That being said, it has very very funny ms
paint illustrations.

------
angstrom
I do great one on one, probably better than most. I can converse without
focusing on myself. I inquire, listen, reciprocate. What I suck at is group
talk. Part of it is that I'm actually following what everyone is saying and
not looking for the point when I can interrupt with a comment. Though what
most people say in such situations, particularly amongst tenuous friendships
or uncommon coworkers amounts to low level banter.

~~~
bilch
Is there a word for letting the world know how great you are by not-so-
cleverly disguising your greatness as a shortcoming? There should be. I need
it every day.

(Sorry to bother you with this, I actually am quite verbally adept, but
English is my twenty-sixth foreign language and even after weeks of practice
sometimes the correct word escapes me.)

------
reader5000
Eh, honestly be grateful there are people that want to talk to you. Learn some
basic assertiveness if such friendly interactions are excruciating for you.

~~~
lsc
it's easier for some people than for others. Especially for introverts, the
skill of leaving gracefully is a non-trivial skill that needs to be learned.

I mean, most people are capable of saying "fuck you leave me alone you
asshole" but usually, you don't want to come off that strong. In most cases,
you don't really have any desire to hurt the other person, and hell, you might
even want to talk later, or talk about a different subject. I just want to be
very clear that I am not interested in hearing about how all 50 presidents can
be traced back to some 13th century English aristocrat, or hearing about some
other crazy political idea or theory that doesn't lead to something
implementable.

It's the ability to make it clear that you aren't interested in this
conversation right now without sounding like you aren't interested in talking
with this person ever that is the tricky bit for those of us who are not
particularly skilled.

I used to be really, really bad at this. I'm getting better, but I still use
crutches and props like my laptop or cellphone, or simply making up something
I've gotta do. (well, really, there's /always/ something useful I could be
doing, but if I'm at my local hackerspace, if someone wants to talk politics,
I'm far more likely to actually start working as an excuse to avoid the
conversation.)

Part of it is being willing to be a little rude... but like I said, the hard
part about that isn't so much the being rude, the hard part is being "a
little" rude - enough to get the desired result without completely alienating
the other person.

This, I think, is what the author of the article was mentioning. In the
introduction, he says "You need to find a way to end the conversation without
making it seem like you want the conversation to end." - which is wrong, I
think. My opinion is that you should find a way to indicate that you wish to
end this conversation without indicating that you don't like or never want to
talk to this person again.

~~~
loewenskind
I don't get why "talking politics" is something to so desperately avoid in the
US. Many intelligent people just wont talk about leaving mostly the close
minded life long party members to be the _only_ voices. Personally I think
this is why the political landscape is so awful in the US.

~~~
philwelch
Hi, I'm an intelligent American who occasionally tries talking about politics.

Many otherwise intelligent Americans are monomaniacal nutjobs or partisan
hacks when it comes to politics. Of course, many Americans who are _not_
otherwise intelligent are just as bad. People get indoctrinated in a certain
political viewpoint and don't have the ability to take on good faith anyone
who disagrees with them. As a result of this, it's so difficult to find
someone capable of intelligently and thoughtfully discussing political issues
that it's rarely worth it.

~~~
hugh3
Even if you do happen to get two people in a conversation who disagree
politically and _are_ capable of thoughtfully and intelligently discussing
political issues, it's so much effort to do so that it's usually not a fun
conversation unless you're already good friends with the person in question.
Discussing politics with people you've just met, or people with whom you're
only vaguely acquainted, is a recipe for disaster.

Worst of all is when you're in a group of people who _think_ they're all in
political agreement, but you disagree with all of them. (As a right-of-centre
academic, this happens surprisingly often.) They're saying something which you
not only disagree with, but which is factually false in some detail. Do you
speak up and risk alienating everybody, or bite your tongue and suffer through
it? (Or do you pretend you need to go to the bathroom and hope the subject has
changed when you come back? That's what I tend to do...)

~~~
philwelch
_Worst of all is when you're in a group of people who think they're all in
political agreement, but you disagree with all of them. (As a right-of-centre
academic, this happens surprisingly often.)_

I can't abide that, and usually speak up just to break the illusion that
everyone agrees. Of course, frank discussions of _real_ politics are probably
a career-limiting move in _faculty_ politics....

------
narrator
Conversation Zen Levels from lowest zen to highest:

Level 1: The conversation does not involve talking about your job. This is
only acceptable in business network situations. If you are not at a trade
show, business event, in an interview or at work you shouldn't talk about
work. This is the most pathetic type of small talk, as it immediately puts you
in a social class/stereotype bucket.

Level 2: The conversation does not involve talking about where you live, or
whether you are going to school and where. Unless you are exactly the same
age, you are not likely to gain any useful information from this, except to
put people into a social class or stereotype bucket, which is detrimental to
conversation.

Level 3: The conversation does not involve talking about any topics that have
to do with people or activities outside of the immediate first-hand knowledge
of the individuals involved in the conversation. E.g no talk about sports,
celebrities, world politics, etc. This kind of talk usually results in nothing
positive that you haven't had 100 or more conversations about already and
serves to bucketize, not in so far as social class is concerned but in other
aspects. Sometimes the other person will have specialized knowledge about a
topic, for instance you may have read the same book or may be into the same
niche topic, and this is acceptable conversation for this zen level but
usually conversation falls into overly mainstream categories that tend to
categorize and stereotype. It's really really hard to have a common niche
interest unless you're at an event catering to that interest so best not to
bother.

Level 4: The conversation does not involve any conversation about anything
taking place in the past or outside of the immediate physical area. This only
usually happen as part of a shared activity and may be difficult or impossible
on a plane or similar circumstances where there is little in the way of shared
experience in the immediate physical area.

Figure out what Zen level you want to communicate with people at and then just
don't talk unless you can achieve that zen level. Ok I made that all up right
in this comment box. The main idea is to avoid any sort of conversation that
would bucketize the other person into a particular social class or stereotype
for as long as possible or bore them with uninteresting chatter in order to
have any more fulfilling interaction. What do you guys think?

~~~
sz
What does this have to do with Zen?

~~~
swombat
Nothing.

Did you notice his line at the end, "Ok I made that all up right in this
comment box." ? That kind of implies that the Zen labels were not to be taken
seriously.

------
philwelch
One of my neighbors has the habit of ending his conversations with, "Well, I
don't have anything left to say" and then going back to his apartment. I like
that about him.

Other than that, I didn't like the article. From what I've seen of this blog,
the blogger seems far too interested in seeking recognition for her often-
childish neuroses rather than developing the self-efficacy to do anything
about them. There's no shame in admitting you're too tired to hang out, and
there's no need to greet an acquaintance at the grocery store with any more
than a nod and a "hey man" if you don't have anything to say.

~~~
jewbacca
From what I understand, this blogger is a purely and explicitly comedic
blogger who is making a living off of what she does. I'll leave it as an open
exercise to enumerate exactly what it is she does that is valuable [0], but to
criticize the author of this blog for not being lionhearted is pretty much
like criticizing Larry David for not being Laurence Olivier.

    
    
      ---
      [0] How is there not some terse bit of internet-ese to invoke the futility of examining some instance of humour?

~~~
bedris
I upvote all comments that compare Larry David to Laurence Olivier, regardless
of what the commenter is saying.

------
wallflower
It is embarrassing that some of the most otherwise socially capable people do
not know the proper technique to extricate yourself from a conversation.

First, what you don't do:

1\. Never ever say "It was nice meeting you" and walk away. Worst case, you've
made an enemy.

2\. Do not say "I want to go to the buffet/bathroom". They may want to go
along with you.

What to do:

1\. State what you want. "I'd like to go meet those people over there."

2\. Give them a choice. "Come with me"

~~~
lsc
>Never ever say "It was nice meeting you" and walk away

wait a second... I do that all the time. what's bad about it?

~~~
wallflower
Was it really nice to meet them? Or are you trying to ditch them? When someone
pulls the 'it was nice meeting you' gambit on you - are you relieved or do you
like being ditched?

~~~
dkarl
It's ambiguous. That's the point. The relationship will remain ambiguous until
it is tested in some way.

Some people -- not that I would stereotype us computer folks this way -- are
extremely averse to social ambiguity, but most people are pretty comfortable
with it. If they need to know something (does that chick like me?) they'll
find out in the natural course of things (when they ask her out.) In the
meantime, if they really, really care, they'll have some anxiety over it, but
that doesn't apply to most interactions. You don't really need to know _right
now_ if that person found it nice to meet you, and rushing to figure it out
only increases the chances that you'll end up believing something false.

Since people are generally okay with ambiguity, it's a no-brainer to them to
observe identical social niceties in some situations regardless of their
actual feelings. There's no point in alienating someone unnecessarily,
especially since you might change your mind later. "Man, what a day. I hated
the latte I got this morning, I hated the ham sandwich I got for lunch, I
hated work, and then I ran into that wallflower douchebag at the grocery
store. Come to think of it, it's probably just me; I hated everything today.
wallflower is probably a decent guy. Maybe I'll invite him to my party this
weekend." Because things can change moment-to-moment, even especially
perceptive people who can see through the niceties treat a lot of what they
perceive as provisional. They don't go back to their lair and add a row to
their enemies database because somebody was a little frosty at the grocery
store.

P.S. The average person's tolerance for social ambiguity is one reason why
it's so frustrating to try to get tips from people who have a lot of social
confidence. We go to great lengths to figure things out to increase our
comfort level and avoid doing the wrong thing; they don't sweat it if
something isn't obvious to them, and when they need to know something, they
use a low-risk probe that at worst results in a mild but informative
"mistake." Usually the real challenge is not an analytical challenge of
figuring out the situation but a creative challenge of coming up with
something to do or say that will turn out okay no matter what the situation
actually is, and will hopefully yield more information so you can refine your
approach.

~~~
AssumeTheBest
Interesting.

------
wazoox
That reminds me that apparently so many people actually seem to _like_ going
to places like bars and hang there for hours keeping on completely pointless
conversations and drinking beer. Really, I don't get it. Twice a year is Okay,
but twice a week? I'd be bored to death. Can anyone explain this social
mystery?

~~~
jdminhbg
Most people go to bars with friends, not slight acquaintances, and have fun
in-depth conversations, not pointless conversations. Most of the situations
depicted in the cartoon are the result of unintentional meetings.

~~~
wazoox
Well I always found that I had better and more in-depth conversations at my
home or my friends' homes that at some public, crowded and noisy place :)

------
akgerber
I wonder what was behind the decision to put a background on this website that
just makes it look like your monitor is dirty.

~~~
wazoox
Oh, so you too spent some time stupidly rubbing your clean monitor :)

~~~
dustyreagan
Haha! I noticed that too. I scrolled the page to see if the smudge scrolled
with it.

------
astrofinch
Pretty sure only introverts have trouble with this kind of stuff. Extroverts
(people who get energized by social situations) don't.

~~~
stretchwithme
even extroverts can be bored out of their mind by someone playing head games.
People who love to eat can still avoid things that are painful to eat

~~~
hugh3
And the social awkwardness of repeatedly running into someone you sort-of know
in the grocery store is pretty much unavoiable whoever you are.

------
sajid
This kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed on HN ... couldn't stop laughing out
loud like a maniac.

------
estacado
When at level 4, I try to have the conversation at the door with me inside and
the other person outside. Once, I was really tired, but the other person
really kept going on and on, I gave several hints that I've had enough, but he
just didn't get it, I even said "Okay, It's nice talking, but I need to sleep
now." He answered that he understood, but for some reason understanding it
didn't make him stop talking. I really didn't care anymore so I just closed
the door slowly while still he was talking. And left it at that. My roomate
who was watching said I was rude, I said I know and we both laughed.

------
yason
This is why knowing how to say "no" is of utmost importance.

------
brianlash
Reminds me of one of Jim Carey's famous scenes:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g1KcOw7zas>

~~~
dgallagher
"He" so needs to make a sequel to that movie. "Pretty bird..."

------
kmfrk
Oh God, I thought this was an article with solutions for the problem.

Now I'm just feel like isolating myself from the world outside.

------
aneth
Enjoyed the article, but I've learned to just be a little rude. Rejection is
part of life, and you can't live yours just trying not to hurt peoples'
feelings. In fact, if you actually care, you should find a time to talk to the
person about how they can improve themselves. If you don't, the more honest
you are with your interactions, the better, IMO.

People who play the game this author plays are a big reason I want to get out
of Seattle. It's passive aggressive niceties like this that quickly take over
the fun in life and drive me nuts.

~~~
rubyrescue
Seattle is one of the worst cities in the US, nay, world for this!

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
I assume you have comprehensive personal experience of everywhere else in the
USA, nay, the world, to be able to say this. I'd love to hear of your
extensive travel experiences.

~~~
rubyrescue
OK! I'll take your comment at face value! I live in South America, grew up in
the southern US (deep south), spent 11 years in Seattle, worked off and on in
California, spent lots of time with friends from all over the world, but
particularly Korea, Japan, Norway, England... I've never met a more passive
agressive group of people or place than Seattle. And I say that as someone who
still really loves the city and will probably go back there.

------
berntb
I have generally no problems with this. I _am_ a type 3.

I am totally convinced emotionally that if I tell people about my nerdy
interests carefully, they will understand that the subjects are the coolest
things on (and off) the planet.

My saving grace is that I have so many nerdy interests that I can speak to
most people anyway.

My message is: You don't need to fear me, just start talking about sports.
Baseball is good, if you want to see real fear in my eyes.

It is OK if you don't know anything about sports, you can bluff me. :-)

------
michaelhalligan
Personally, I just say "excuse me" and walk away from all uncomfortable or
boring conversations.

