
How I Made 50 Friends In One Month - lionhearted
http://30vanquish.com/how-i-made-50-friends-in-one-month/
======
nostrademons
Interestingly, I've found these percentages seem to hold true in a variety of
other social situations as well. Online dating, for instance - I find I get
responses to about 30% of initial messages, but 2/3 of those are just being
polite and never strike up a conversation, so I end up with RL dates with
about 10% of initial prospects. Haven't met one yet that I felt a real
connection to, but I've only been on 8 dates so far, so 1% would imply I've
got a few to go.

Or college. I figure I knew (had some interaction with, could name & recognize
by sight) perhaps 300 people at my college. Maybe 30 of them I'd call
"friends" - I could sit down with them at the dining hall without feeling
awkward and chit-chat about classes or hobbies or interests or society and
politics. Only about 2 or 3 of them did I really feel close enough to to stay
in touch with them after college, once our common interests had ended.

~~~
30vanquish
Great insight on this. It tends to hold true for many social aspects. It's
something that I take into account when I get rejected or the talk can't go
beyond any certain subject/topic because it's nothing personal. The certain
wavelength or timing when you met causes the talk to never reach that long-
lasting depth.

------
wallflower
For the real world, focus on the Three C's:

"Conversation-friendliness: Your main tool of contact and communication is
your voice. So ask yourself whether a particular venue is suitable for
carrying on a conversation. Quieter places are generally better. Loud clubs
and bars generally are not, but sometimes their quieter patios or balconies
can work. Bookstores and coffee shops are much better.

Community: There is pre-existing rapport when some common thread of interest
connects a group together. The more specific the thread and the greater effort
people have made to come to the venue, the stronger the rapport, and the
easier time you will have making contact. Talking to people watching a game at
a bar is likely to be a fleeting interaction, whereas the people you meet at a
conference in Buenos Aires on emperor penguins may become lifelong friends.

Continuity: Stationary people are easier to meet than those in motion. The
longer people tend to stay at a given venue, the easier it is to meet them.
Continuity can also develop over longer periods of time. There is built-in
familiarity with someone whom you see three times a week at the gym which
makes it easier to meet her."

<http://taoofdating.com/sample1.php>

~~~
30vanquish
When it comes to real life, I second the last point because people in motion
are much tougher to approach than someone who is sitting and stationary.

Community does let you get past the rapport issue more quickly. But besides
that one interest, how do you go farther?

I also agree that quieter places are better so you don't have environmental
interference.

~~~
wallflower
> But besides that one interest, how do you go farther?

It really comes down to taking the initiative. The goal when you first meet
someone you like (aside from the rare person you meet on a plane and connect
with and share life stories) could be (sometimes you might not meet them
again) to meet them again. Don't try to "date" them (friends or potential
lovers) on the first meeting - the whole goal is to get the contact
information to meet again, somewhere else, ideally doing something the other
person likes. Just find out what the other person likes to do and invite them
to go do it - 'I love art - and watching people enjoy art - I'd like to meet
up and go with you to the X exhibit and the museum' - (the key word here is
'I'd like' phrasing - not 'Do you want to?' - express your preference, take
the lead...)

I've met a fair number of the people who matter in my life through taking the
initiative and talking to strangers. But, to be clear, it was not a first
degree contact - it was meeting them through the person I initially met.

The problem with Google+ Circles, is that it does not allow overlap. In real
life, the interesting connections occur when you overlap circles (e.g. throw a
party and your improv friends meet your Salsa dancing friends). Throwing a
party is one of the most effective ways to improve your social life. Indeed,
taking the lead on anything is powerful. Going to an event solo may make you
feel like a pariah but going with two other people - you're golden.

The ideal is the self-perpetuating party - e.g. you throw enough regular
parties that you get invited to outings constantly. Doesn't have to be a
Saturday night blow-out, something like a Tuesday night potluck for three or
four friends, once or twice a month, will really grow your social circles.

And, most importantly, to end my soapbox (thanks for asking), just be
yourself. If you are quiet and shy, don't try to be Tom Cruise 'Show me the
money'. Be yourself. As much as I wanted to be the life of the party, I'm
relatively happy knowing a lot of people from various worlds and circles. When
I hang out with people, its usually not very regularly and usually with their
good friends (and I'm the odd one out).

But the universe rewards bold action.

~~~
mhansen
G+ circles does allow overlap - both in people that are in circles, and when
you share things you can choose to share it with multiple circles.

~~~
30vanquish
that is true. we were talking about a party where two circles can have more
potential to become one. if g+ plus does do that, i'll be sure to keep
checking out functions on it.

------
erikb
I would suggest you really learn to know some real people. And "really" really
means "real life". There are things about communcation (non-verbal for
example) that you can not have over the internet. Also a relationship will
never reach the depth of a comparable real life relationship, if you never see
the other person.

From that post it is pretty clear that you have nearly no experience with
human beings (who consider writing to 400 people for no real reason creepy and
call one-month-old-relationships not friendship) and also don't like to have.
That itself is okay from my point of view. But it also means that you can not
do anything connection related. You are just not the type of person for that.
Don't take it too personal. I myself am not the want-to-know-everybody type.
That's why I can easily recognise someone who has the same illusions I had
when I was younger (and to some degree probably still have).

Another tip I want to give you just to help you not "burn your hands": If you
make one relationship in 1 or 2 years that you can really call a friendship,
then you are more successful in that job then most people! Your count at the
moment is not 50, it is zero. You don't know how people are different if you
really learn to know them, how many people are nice to you for a short term,
but actually don't care about you and also how many people are out there who
want to gain from your disadvantage. Be careful, please.

~~~
olliesaunders
Having friends on the internet to the exclusion of real life friends is
certainly bad but meeting people on the internet does not preclude getting to
know them in real life. Location isn’t even much of a barrier any more. I did
a programming competition with a guy in Canada—I’m in the UK—and he invited me
over there when I later publicly complained that my job was starting to suck
on a forum. I went for 3 weeks and had an awesome time.

Even if you never meet any of the people you talk to on the internet in real
life. So what? You still made a load of internet buddies. And there’s great
value in having a little roster of people you can turn to for advice,
guidance, and opinion. The system he’s using is already self-selecting for
those who are open enough to be suitable for such things.

    
    
        From that post it is pretty clear that you have 
        nearly no experience with human beings
    

How is that clear? You can speculate, sure. But I just see someone motivated
to make connection with people.

    
    
        who consider writing to 400 people for no real 
        reason creepy
    

Creepy for some. It depends how paranoid you are.

    
    
        and call one-month-old-relationships not friendship
    

He wouldn’t be the first blogger in the world prone to exaggeration.

    
    
        people are out there who want to gain from your
        disadvantage. Be careful, please.
    

Yes, there are scum bags, con artists, and assholes. We’ve all met them. But
isolating yourself away from all people just because of those bad ones is not
a good idea. The skill you need to work out who you like and who you don’t is
what’s important and you can only learn that by practicing, which means
exposing yourself to lots of new people. How else can you learn? Besides the
author is doing things in a pretty safe way by getting to know people over the
internet and with Skype first. FUD and attempts to build a fortress around
yourself are actually dangerous.

Even if you don’t agree with me. I just prefer to live this way: I prefer to
believe it’s better to connect with people; I prefer confidence to shy
timidness; I prefer to look enthusiastic when meeting a new person over
fearful judgment. All the other things eat away at me and turn me into a
scared person. I hate that.

~~~
30vanquish
Thanks for the great insight.

With the help of skype, you can see body language, tone (non-verbal
communication) almost as well as real life now.

Location isn't a barrier anymore and that's what makes the internet so
powerful.

>The system he’s using is already self-selecting for those who are open enough
to be suitable for such things.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Most of the 50 people I've talked I've connected with for at least six months.

The way I make messages online pretty much ignores small talk. I try to steer
the conversation to that depth as quickly as possible. If someone is willing
to tell you about their deep experiences (and it makes logic sense) then
they're most likely authentic.

------
hammock
This got me thinking. One thing which applies in the real world but not online
is PROXIMITY.

Most of the time when you live with someone, work with someone, or just spend
a lot of time around someone, you are MUCH more likely to become friends that
you otherwise would.

I have not found this to be true online. Just because you spend a lot of time
in a particular forum doesnt mean you are more likely to develop friendships
with those people- only the people who match your viewpoints etc.

Then again I wouldnt say Ive ever formed anything coming close to a "close
friendship" with anyone I solely interact with online, so I'd be curious to
know what others think about this.

~~~
30vanquish
You've brought up good points. More and more exposure when it comes to work
and school can benefit real life relationships as well.

However, when I've met people online, I don't connect with them really well
until the 2nd attempt. (I give people 2 chances).

When you're in real life and it's just a stranger that passes by, you never
get that potential second chance.

------
wccrawford
Guess it depends on your definition of 'friend' then, because by my standards,
that would have been '4 friends' and not '50 friends'. '50 acquaintances' now,
that I'd agree with.

That isn't to say this isn't a valuable tactic. Making 4 good friends is
nothing to scoff at.

~~~
jamesteow
"During March 2010, I sent messages to around 400 people."

If I had to spend that much time writing messages, I'd rather just volunteer
my time at a non-profit, join a club, or attend some sort of meetup.com meetup
to get to know people in my neighbourhood and/or within my city.

~~~
30vanquish
It's the same amount of filtering like the other reply.

It comes down to wanting social interactions without having to go through that
small talk stuff that most people need to go through in real life.

I also do volunteer my time as well. Although I do understand concern for
making the best use of one's time. I only messaged people whom I felt there
was potential.

The same filtering applies though because you can attend things where there
aren't many people you could relate to or you can only relate with that one
particular interest and nothing else.

~~~
olliesaunders
I’m massively interested to know what you said in your opening messages.

~~~
30vanquish
If I talk to someone on a music forum, then you could talk about that music
artist. Then from there if they list on their profile that they like the
soccer team, Barcelona, and the movie, The Matrix, (for examples), then I send
them a message:

"Hi, so what's your favorite album by [music artist]? Mine is probably _____.
Have you been catching up on how Barcelona is doing? I also like the Matrix
movie. If you were in Neo's position, would you choose the red or blue pill? I
would probably pick blah blah because blah blah.

-Matt"

------
olalonde
This is just kind of creepy, isn't it?

~~~
30vanquish
How would it be creepy? It's just like any friend you would make. You have to
start by talking to a stranger.

If you want to do it in a formal manner like a classroom, a workplace, a
meetup, then that's cool.

I simply don't want to limit myself to just that.

~~~
olalonde
Well, after reading what your blog is all about I can see why you did that.
That being said, your strategy is based on "throwing against the wall to see
what sticks" and I think there are much more efficient ways to make friends
for common mortals ;) One of them is to target people you want to be friends
with before approaching them (through meetups, common friends, etc.). I can
say for sure that I probably wouldn't want to stay your friend after reading
your blog just as I'm sure women don't want to be with guys who have their own
"pick up artist" blog.

~~~
30vanquish
It has that mindset to see what works and what doesn't. I'll agree there
probably are easier ways to meet and make friends.

That's cool. Everyone has their own taste. If some people are turned off by
reading my blog, it's the same as dressing up a certain way (some people like
it, others not so much).

