The word "friend" itself takes on different meanings to different groups of people -- especially after the rise of FB -- 1000s of "friends" on a social network is very different from 100s of "friends" you've only met once which is also very different from the ~5 "friends" you see on a daily basis, and much different from 0/1/2 "best" friends who you think you'd do anything for.
I also think it's weird that everyone has to learn these (and other lesson) themselves in their 20s/30s/40s/whenever -- why is there not a compendium of reasonable/decent ways to approach intrapersonal relationships and society in society today? Like a farmer's almanac for human interaction.
[EDIT] - I also think that this is the key difference between sales and engineering orgs. Not that all engineers are introverts or all sales people are extroverts but this choice of expenditure of energy feels crucial to me.
I have also wondered about this. And recently was surprised that my kid's school has a multi-year program in which things like this are covered. They call it PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education). It includes age-approriate learnings about relationships, starting in early years with friends and family relationships, what they mean, differences, feelings, etc. It gets repeated each year and expands earlier learnings. Seems very good. I guess it's a UK thing as my kid's school is an international school following the British curriculum.
I bet there is a market for: My life is a mess - I can't seem to do anything right - Can you teach me the basics of getting along in society - Education. Well... I suppose the self-help market is a good indication of that, but I mean taking perhaps a more structured approach.
Have you seen this? https://www.succeedsocially.com/
It's funny how entertaining it is to read seemingly obvious, common sense advice on things I learned "intuitively" (i.e. trial and error as an awkward adolescent) but never heard articulated out loud.
I don't think it's saying "conform or lose", just, "this is how to conform".
If you can't or don't want to, more power to you, tell that advice to fuck right off. There's nothing wrong with not conforming---its explanation of how you're not conforming is still right, though.
In an interview he says: "When I look back on some of the most likable people I’ve met, they were using the same core social skills we all do, but just executing on everything at a more polished, consistent level."
Likableness is not about "polished, consistent" execution of some social techniques. It has to do with authenticity, a sense of humour, intellectual strengths, etc. The idea that the most likeable people are likeable because they are skilled performers sounds like a normalisation of superficial narcissistic behaviour.
It's all a bit humourless and robotic. "Pod person" territory. Social interaction as technical performance is a way of looking at it that most people would find unsettling.
Maybe it's because you buy into their "authenticity". Or maybe it's because I don't really get social behavior.
There isn't a hard scientific consensus about the dynamics of narcissism. It's kind of at the intellectual stage of being a "code smell" that many very serious people have learned to detect from bitter personal experience.
But more seriously, I don't care how diluted the word has become. It names a very recognizable phenomenon, one that we have a problem with in the current culture, but which isn't new. If you care about engaging with that phenomenon (and typically, if you do, you don't have a choice in the matter) then the professional use of the term becomes the only meaning that has significant value.
But from what I've seen, I think you're reading too much into it all. You're right that all he offers is conventionality, that's the whole point, the site describes social conventions. That doesn't mean he's saying you're going to die friendless and alone if you ever dare to break the mold. The quote you cite just sounds to me like he's saying here's what people do, and for people who do it really well, it really works.
presumably if one is seeking advice on how to succeed by conforming, they are already losing
I like your overall point, but disagree here. I actually find a lot of introverts (such as myself) remember MORE minutiae than extroverts because we are more prone to listen than to speak.
We just won't bring it up out of nowhere because we already know how the conversation will go or are not piqued enough by the subject matter to think it warrants a conversation.
"Oh, hows your son doing in soccer?
So great. he won/lost x/y/z games. He's such a n/m/o player and feels r/s/t about it.
Ohhh, that's great." End scene.
Friends help you move.
 And of course there's "real friends help you move bodies" if we want to look at the hierarchy of "friendships"
Life-long friendship-or-else, amirite?
The college I went to had a great comm course called "Sex, Relationships, and Communication" and it covered many things in this area. Really should have been a required high school course.
I didn't use it as much as lectures/notes which were very good but the reviews seem positive. I'd probably pirate it to test drive before buying given the price of academic textbooks. Different editions also tend to save a bunch of many so look for older editions too!
Wait a minute.
Has anyone really consider their 10,100 or 1000 facebook friends as IRL friends ? Do some people really confuse both kinds ?
From my understanding, intro/extroversion is how people like to process information. Introverts like to think through things. Extroverts like to talk it out. These are correlated with other behaviors, but those behaviors aren't the definition of intro/extroversion itself.
I only say this because I know plenty of introverts that do exactly what the parent comment is saying and love it.
I have never heard that as the primary definition of intro/extroversion. The difference is really about how you "recharge". Introverts recharge by spending time alone, while extroverts recharge by spending time with others. Thus, introverts may be fine in social situations, BUT if they don't get adequate "alone time" they will get exhausted.
Thus, this really is tied to introversion/extroversion when it comes to keeping up with "weak" networks. I may like to socialize, but as an introvert, that costs me energy, so I am picky about where I "spend" it, and oftentimes I will forgo the chance to socialize with folks I don't know that well because, for me, it's not worth the energy.
This is a very recent Internet cliché.
I believe that the terms were introduced by Carl Jung about one century ago, and they refer to the dominant focus of one's mental life. Introverts dominant focus is on their internal worlds, while extroverts dominant focus is on the external world.
Introvert / Extrovert: Introverts consider their mind as the "real world", whereas Extroverts consider the external world as the "real world". Everything that takes place in the "not real world" has to be processed and rooted back in the "real world", which is why there is the stereotypical "Introverts need to be alone" / "Extroverts need to be in a crowd"
Intuitive / Sensing: Intuitive means you think about what is "behind the curtain", Sensing means you mainly consider what is right in front of you
Thinking / Feeling: When making decisions, Feelers take personal relationships into account. Thinkers are much more "fact based" and don't consider the social dynamics as much.
Perceiving / Judging : The way they explained this one is that people tend to want to organize either the outer world or their minds. Judgers want the external world to be organized and make sense, so that they can let their internal mind wander. Perceivers want their minds to be organized so they can play with things in the external world.
I think I got that all mostly correct. They have a series they did on Myers-Briggs that I thought was really interesting.
They also talk about one called the "Enneagram", which found to be really interesting.  I'm a "Self-Preservation Three" in that system.
This doesn't mean you can't or don't behave in ways outside your preference; we all do, everyday. It just means that, all other things being equal, you will lean toward extraversion or introversion.
Also, please note that MBTI E/I does not equate to extraversion/introversion as it is known and understood by society at large.
"A study from 2018 found that people formed a “casual” friendship after spending 30 hours together."
Of note, when you click on that "study", it's actually a paper on two studies. The first study's methodology relies on participants using Amazon's Mechanical Turk via survey collection, and these participants "were given $.65 for survey completion". Then, the second study's methodology relies on "a Midwest public university, [where] participants were recruited from public speaking courses. To be eligible, participants had to have enrolled in their first semester of school that fall (i.e., freshman, transfer) and have moved to the city within 2 weeks prior to the start of class." There's no mention of incentives for the second study.
I wish the NYT article talked more about the details of these studies and their possible limitations, for instance, with generalizing. Still, I think this is an interesting question. I wonder if there's meta-analysis research done in this area.
Often times introverted people are brimming (if not full) of empathy, and compassion. The joy they give is the joy they receive. That reward system is personal, internal, and can even be sullied by outside observance.
These people (whom you might have known, or know now) really don't need compliments. In fact, compliments border on uncomfortable. They probably give anonymously.
They put themselves in peoples shoes and embody their difficulty.
Their reward is to help because that effort returns to them in an unspoken and even unnoticed joy.
Having friends, or a social network is definitely a way to create opportunities. But for some people, that isn't necessarily worth the engagement.
A very empathetic person might not want to loosely couple themselves in a social network with anyone else if they feel like they won't be able to offer their finest. It'd be unfair.
They don't need those connections to find joy. They generate their own in compassion.
We don't see each other outside this context, except for the occasional serendipitous run-ins. They are nice, casual friendships that tie me closer to my community.
That kind of community feels less and less common with our AirPods in, heads in our phones, taking Lyft instead of public transit, etc.
Third Places are critical to the social fabric of a community, and I think they are largely overlooks and underappreciated by people.
(I have not read it personally.)
Now my third place is more or less at home with my siblings.
I saw an article recently that kind of missed what "Third Place" was, in my opinion. It basically said "Third Place" was just taking time for yourself. The real point of "Third Places", in my understanding, is that they are neither home nor work. At home, connections you build are with family. At work, connections you build are with coworkers. At third places, the connections you build are with the broader community. It's where you build the disparate connections that weave together the "social fabric" of a place.
This is more important to me personally than becoming friends with waitstaff at the restaurants I go to.
I'm curious what you think of this take.
A good question is whether you think someone could be so charming that you would be their friend even if they never let you speak. Mass media is not new and my guess is that ever since the printing press readers would form personal connections with writers.
I don't think any of it is inherently good or bad, but it's a matter of what you want to pay attention to. Everyone around you will be less entertaining, charming, inspiring, or funny than the podcast, but they will listen to you. Which kind of relationship would you rather have?
Compared to making random small-talk with the server at a restaurant?
I'd prefer the one-way relationship with the podcast host.
Compared to hanging out with a good friend/acquaintance and talking in-depth for hours about subjects we're passionate about? I'd mostly prefer the hanging out (but maybe sometimes not!).
My point is that one type of relationship isn't by default better or worse in my life.
I'm less convinced that the claimed benefits of casual networks (feeling connected, for example) accrue to purely online casual relationships.
"We don't use the expression IRL. We say AFK. [...]
We don't like that expression. We say AFK - Away From Keyboard. We think that the internet is for real." - Peter Sunde
But the real problem seems this tendency to use Facebook for everything, when it's really not the best option for anything. Better platforms can provide filtered options automatically, reducing the work for both parties. I really hope FB starts losing its grasp on the web.
I can't filter by location, rent, rooms, etc. etc. I have to instead scroll through dozens of irrelevant posts, then send a message to relevant ones and hope that I'm a suitable housemate and they reply back.
Meanwhile, on websites specifically designed for finding roommates, I can usually search by location, price, rooms, gender requirement (if any), building type (e.g. apartment, house), etc. etc.
Some people view that relationship as "you need me so come to me" - in my experience, those are the worst people to live with.
I rather like that Facebook lets people act naturally. The people that reply to those lazy posts are usually poor planners desperately seeking a flatmate... so neither group engages with my ads :D
I found jobs that way. Also preprints. And copies of EPA documents that were under review, or buried for political reasons. I tracked down authors, and got background.
The social sciences are a dumpster fire.
>> The social sciences are a dumpster fire.
> Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about?
IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks.
Given the political self identification of the professors in the field (over 99% progressive), it seems reasonable to assume that the political beliefs of the faculty contribute to the skepticism that the field, and academia more broadly, have of IQ.
1. I'm not saying that people should trust IQ. I'm saying that, to the extent that people trust social science, they should trust IQ more than anything else from the field.
2. There is actually research about what you are talking about:
"The upshot of this research is that work sample tests (e.g., seeing if people can actually do key elements of a job -- if a secretary can type or a programmer can write code ), general mental ability (IQ and related tests), and structured interviews had the highest validity of all methods examined (Arun, thanks for the corrections). As Arun also suggests, Schmidt and Hunter point out that three combinations of methods that were the most powerful predictors of job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (in other words, hiring someone smart and seeing if they could do the work), GMA plus an integrity test, and GMA plus a structured interview (but note that unstructured interviews, the way they are usually done, are weaker)."
This is not to say that IQ is some sort of guarantee - the correlation is only about 0.5. That being said, it is one of the strongest factors; at a population level, it should not be particularly surprising that IQ would have a strong impact on economic success.
On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely that someone with an IQ of 85 or less will be able to understand complex abstract concepts. That's about 50 million people in the USA.
Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind.
> Restricting chemicals proved to lower IQ springs immediately to mind.
Iodized salt is an example of a successful global health program that effectively did just this, but in reverse (promoted a IQ protective chemical).
The single most trustworthy finding for ... what though? I don't know what a measurement being "trustworthy" means unless you associate it as an indicator for something else. But you didn't do that.
> The single most trustworthy finding for ... what though? I don't know what a measurement being "trustworthy" means unless you associate it as an indicator for something else. But you didn't do that.
Literally the next sentence is:
>> In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks.
I don't know if you think the current academic scientific process is a method of discovering facts about the universe, but if you do, the process of replication and fielding criticism is the process through which scientific findings become trustworthy.
Cosma Shalizi has a much better critique, although it too has some flaws: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html
> Anyone following Nassim Taleb's dissembling on IQ lately has likely stumbled across an argument, originally created by Cosma Shalizi, which purports to show that the psychometric g is a statistical myth. But I realized that based on this argument, not only is psychometrics a deeply flawed science, but so is thermodynamics!
Ha! Haha! Is Taleb wilfully ignoring that most people work salaried (or wage) jobs?!? Most do not become hedge fund managers, entrepreneurs, independent authors.
I'm not sure what it measures, and I don't think anybody is. It is some real phenomenon, because success on some tasks have a high correlation to it (that disappears at high levels). It is also severely overrated by nearly everybody that talks about it.
Also, the US military essentially does IQ testing, so I wouldn't say it's just "crackpots". It would be pretty ridiculous to say that a high IQ score offers no useful signal at all.
There is actually an important reason why the US Military does IQ testing: they tried using low IQ troops in Vietnam; it didn't work very well.