The general angle is asking intelligent, and forward-pointing questions, specifically because deep processing for thoughts (as described in Thinking Fast and Slow) is rare, even within the business community; so demonstrating understanding, and curiosity (both of which are strength of people on LW) is an almost instant-win.
Two of the better guides on how to approach this intelligently are:
The other aspect of this is Speaking the Lingo. The problem with LW is:
1, people developing gravity wells around specific topics , and having a very hard time talking about stuff others are interested in without bringing up pet topics of their own; and
2, the inference distance between the kind of stuff that puts people into powerful position, and the kind of stuff LW develops a gravity well around is, indeed, vast.
The operational hack here is 1, listening, 2, building up the scaffolds on which these people hang their power upon; 3, recognizing whether you have an understanding of how those pieces fit together.
General algorithm for the networking dance:
1, Ask intelligent question, listen intently
2, Notice your brain popping up a question/handle that you have an urge to speak up. Develop a classification algo to notice whether the question was generated by your pet gravity well, or by novel understanding.
3, If the former,SHUT UP. If you really have the urge, mimic back what they’ve just said to internalize / develop your understanding (and move the conversation along)
Side-effects might include: developing an UGH-field towards browsing lesswrong, incorporating, and getting paid truckloads. YMMV.
The ‘towards’ scopes over browsing LW, not the rest of the itemized list: ‘1. developing an ugh-fiend (towards browsing LW); 2. incorporating (and building a business with your new spare time); 3. getting paid (truckloads).’
I’m not sure that being a rationalist gives you a significant advantage in interpersonal relationships. A lot of our brain seems to be specifically designed for social interactions; trying to use the rational part of your brain to do social interactions is like using a CPU chip to do graphics instead of a GPU; you can do it, but it’ll be slower and less efficient and effective then using the hardware that’s designed for that.
Perhaps the slow thinking could be used later at home to review the social interactions of the day. It will not directly help to fix the problems caused by quick wrong reactions, but it could help discover some strategical problems.
For example: You are failing to have a good relation with this specific person, but maybe it’s just the person randomly disliking you, or the person remembering your past errors which you have already fixed. Try spending some time with other people and notice whether their reactions are different.
More obvious, but less frequent example: This person seems to like you and invites your to their cult. Be careful!
Yeah, that’s very true; I’m not claiming that rational thought is useless for social interaction, it is good to sometimes stop and think about your social interactions on your own when you have some downtime.
That being said, there are downsides as well. If you’re using rational thought instead of the social parts of your brain to decide how to react to social situations, you will tend to react differently. Not that you’re wrong, or irrational, but you just won’t respond to social cues in the way people expect, and that itself might give you a disadvantage.
Thinking about this, it is actually reminding me of the behavior of a friend of mine who has a form of high-functioning autism; she’s very smart, but she reacts quite differently in social situations then most people would expect. Perhaps that is basically what she is doing.
Do you have any experience doing this successfully? I’d assume that powerful people already have lots of folks trying to make friends with them.
Specifically for business, I do.
The general angle is asking intelligent, and forward-pointing questions, specifically because deep processing for thoughts (as described in Thinking Fast and Slow) is rare, even within the business community; so demonstrating understanding, and curiosity (both of which are strength of people on LW) is an almost instant-win.
Two of the better guides on how to approach this intelligently are:
http://www.slideshare.net/foundercentric/how-not-to-suck-at-introductions
http://www.kalzumeus.com/standing-invitation/
The other aspect of this is Speaking the Lingo. The problem with LW is:
1, people developing gravity wells around specific topics , and having a very hard time talking about stuff others are interested in without bringing up pet topics of their own; and
2, the inference distance between the kind of stuff that puts people into powerful position, and the kind of stuff LW develops a gravity well around is, indeed, vast.
The operational hack here is 1, listening, 2, building up the scaffolds on which these people hang their power upon; 3, recognizing whether you have an understanding of how those pieces fit together.
General algorithm for the networking dance:
1, Ask intelligent question, listen intently
2, Notice your brain popping up a question/handle that you have an urge to speak up. Develop a classification algo to notice whether the question was generated by your pet gravity well, or by novel understanding.
3, If the former,SHUT UP. If you really have the urge, mimic back what they’ve just said to internalize / develop your understanding (and move the conversation along)
Side-effects might include: developing an UGH-field towards browsing lesswrong, incorporating, and getting paid truckloads. YMMV.
If you have an “UGH-field towards”, do you mean attracted to, or repulsed by browsing LW, making money, etc?
The ‘towards’ scopes over browsing LW, not the rest of the itemized list: ‘1. developing an ugh-fiend (towards browsing LW); 2. incorporating (and building a business with your new spare time); 3. getting paid (truckloads).’
Unambiguous mistake or ambiguous parallel construction? I agree w/ your parse, on grounds of the indisputable goodness of truckloads of money.
I didn’t misunderstand it when I read it initially, so I think latter.
Sure, but rationalists should win.
I’m not sure that being a rationalist gives you a significant advantage in interpersonal relationships. A lot of our brain seems to be specifically designed for social interactions; trying to use the rational part of your brain to do social interactions is like using a CPU chip to do graphics instead of a GPU; you can do it, but it’ll be slower and less efficient and effective then using the hardware that’s designed for that.
Perhaps the slow thinking could be used later at home to review the social interactions of the day. It will not directly help to fix the problems caused by quick wrong reactions, but it could help discover some strategical problems.
For example: You are failing to have a good relation with this specific person, but maybe it’s just the person randomly disliking you, or the person remembering your past errors which you have already fixed. Try spending some time with other people and notice whether their reactions are different.
More obvious, but less frequent example: This person seems to like you and invites your to their cult. Be careful!
Yeah, that’s very true; I’m not claiming that rational thought is useless for social interaction, it is good to sometimes stop and think about your social interactions on your own when you have some downtime.
That being said, there are downsides as well. If you’re using rational thought instead of the social parts of your brain to decide how to react to social situations, you will tend to react differently. Not that you’re wrong, or irrational, but you just won’t respond to social cues in the way people expect, and that itself might give you a disadvantage.
Thinking about this, it is actually reminding me of the behavior of a friend of mine who has a form of high-functioning autism; she’s very smart, but she reacts quite differently in social situations then most people would expect. Perhaps that is basically what she is doing.