

What makes people click with each other? - zackattack
http://www.zacharyburt.com/2010/11/what-makes-two-people-click/

======
zach
Vulnerability is just the precondition to what actually occurs, which is a
transaction of authority. The lack of vulnerability is complete autonomy,
which is defined as not accepting any authority besides oneself. It's the
transaction of authority that builds the connection.

Similarity, proximity and resonance all seem to boil down to three aspects of
presence: circumstantial, physical and intentional. If I ask if you know
"where I'm at," that could be about my circumstances, location or intentions.

That cuts the list down to vulnerability (i.e. giving up some autonomy),
presence, and a safe place (i.e. a sense of control). Very interesting.

~~~
zackattack
would you elaborate more on transactions of authority, or perhaps provide a
link to a resource where i can learn more, zach?

~~~
zach
Sure. Transactions of authority are those things we all know are there --
these stepping stones towards building a relationship.

Okay, first, "authority" has cultural baggage, because "authority" sounds
formal and institutional and the thing you're supposed to question. But it
also embraces opinion, influence and respect. It's the same word as
trustedness, so if you want you could use that, but I'll stick with authority.

So on one side, there is some measure of vulnerability, as you said. It could
be very small, like asking a question. It's anything that contradicts the
thesis that "I know what's right, I can do it and I don't need you." Asking a
question, asking for help, offering an opinion for validation, revealing one's
own flaws or willingly showing incompetence are all acts which negate that
thesis.

On the other side, there needs to be a willingness to accept the truthfulness
of the transaction and the responsibility of bearing the costs involved in
completing the transaction. If it's something I can do that makes me feel good
about myself, helps someone I love and doesn't cost me much, I am going to be
thrilled to do it. If it's someone I don't know asking me to go buy booze for
them in a 7-Eleven with a $100 bill, not so much.

But trust is the number one factor, and the first step up in trust is huge.
Going from zero (complete stranger) to ten (decent person I don't know) is a
lot easier than going from ten to twenty. That's why first impression, and
particularly the first transaction of authority, is huge, because if you go to
negative ten first, you are in a serious hole. If you're a website, that's
when the user goes for the back button anyway.

Understanding how to build a relationship is understanding how and when to
handle these transactions of authority. This is why rejection therapy is a
useful exercise -- the one who gets rejected knows how far to jump next time
better than the one who never skips a step.

This also provides a framework for understanding what are otherwise "social
hacks" as constructive, proper and polite ways to interact. It's useful to
know that "can I cut in line so I can make some copies" is not just exploiting
some neurobug but offering a different transaction -- Can I offer you the
status of "someone who helped me out when I was unable to do something all by
myself" in exchange for a cut in line?

You can even argue Ben Franklin was being polite rather than a jerk when he
asked to borrow a book from someone he wanted to build a relationship with.
Even though he didn't really care about the book, and it was a tactic, he was
offering a polite transaction and was building a friendly relationship, which
he at least always saw as a greater good. I'm not sure about that one, but you
can at least see the broader context this way.

Transactions of authority are what build a relationship not just between two
people but in communities. Similarity is nice, but even small transactions of
authority are better.

~~~
zackattack
This is excellent. Is this your original theory? I would like to read about it
in greater detail because I have some questions.

~~~
zach
Thank you for the encouragement. It's just my own way of making sense of the
world but I hadn't actually fleshed it out in writing before. I do have a blog
that I recently rebooted at Posterous but I tend to talk on HN much more than
I blog!

~~~
zackattack
i would like to formally encourage you to express your ideas in a blog post.
you may find it to be useful to yourself and others would certainly benefit
from it. i know your perspective would certainly inform my cognitive models.

------
olegious
Leave it to geeks to make something as amazing as "clicking with another
person," especially someone of the opposite sex, seem so technical and linear.

But an interesting read ;).

~~~
powrtoch
I think of it as one of those things that a lot of people get intuitively, but
some people have to have explained to them. You can become good at just about
anything in life given enough effort, it's just that we usually prefer to play
to our strengths instead of making things hard on ourselves. So if you're a
terrible artist, you could (a) take years of classes, learn a bunch of
techniques, and eventually be able to draw well, or (b) pick another hobby. If
the thing you're bad at is social interaction though, (b) is probably not an
attractive option. I feel the same way each time one of these "fashion for
hackers" posts shows up. It's kind of funny/sad if it's explaining something
that you already get, but for those that don't get it, it's surely nice to
have it laid out in painstaking detail. Because sometimes option (b) just
sucks.

~~~
olegious
good point.

------
euroclydon
Don't miss the Mixergy interview with the (book) author:

<http://mixergy.com/click-ori-brafman-interview/>

~~~
AndrewWarner
The book is a good read too.

Ori is good with illustrative stories.

------
iampims
a mysterious title?

joke aside, the title of the article is "What makes two people click?" which I
interpret widely differently from the actual submission link.

The article itself is a great read.

edit: submission title has been updated :)

------
americandesi333
I am not sure if I agree with the 'physical proximity' piece. You can create
that same level of trust and group work environment in virtual office
environment through the use of technology (IM, video conf, emails, calls). The
growth in telecommuters have created a need for stellar tools to help people
collaborate and create bonds even when they are not physically close to each
other.

~~~
zackattack
I evidently explained that poorly. The idea was that if you're going to a
meeting in a building at work, then you might arrive early. You might spend a
few minutes chatting with a coworker who also arrived early. This "irrelevant"
social chatter helps build a relationship, and might be less likely to occur
if you're telecommuting, because then your conversations might be forced to be
purposeful. You no longer can transfer information over casual watercooler
breaks.

~~~
mbrubeck
I work remotely for a very distributed organization (Mozilla), and still get a
lot of informal interaction. The key is to have several different
communication venues with different standards and expectations. Discussion in
Bugzilla is fairly technical and work-oriented. Discussion on mailing lists
allows for more advocacy. IRC allows for more chatty, non-work-related talk,
and some IRC channels have different rules than others. We also use Twitter,
private email, internal web forums, internal and external wikis, Rypple,
etc...

~~~
swernli
I think that's exactly the point: while those myriad of technologies allow you
to mitigate some of the downsides of distance, they still don't have the
accidental factor that random hallway conversations have. I can walk by
someone having a cool conversation in the break room and join in. I can have
lunch with my coworkers and seamsly switch back forth between work discussions
and personal ones. And I don't have to follow anything, check any mailboxes,
or type any responses arbitrarily limited to a certain number of characters.

------
Towle_
Mashable article by Ori Brafman, author of _Click_ :
<http://mashable.com/2010/06/17/facebook-connect-fail/>

_Why Facebook Can't Genuinely Connect People_

"But there are specific factors, or _accelerators_ , that trigger such
connections -- and there are three that Facebook is seriously lacking:
Physical proximity, vulnerability and a clearly defined community."

He goes on to discuss how and why Facebook lacks each of the three.

------
zach
These look like reasons why you might adopt a stray kitten abandoned in your
yard, even if you wouldn't go to the shelter to adopt a grown cat.

