My experience has been similar, and I’ll also add on a related note that probably one big reason why I’m not better at casual conversation is that if I’m not genuinely curious about the answer to a question I’m asking, I often won’t have anything interesting to say as a followup to whatever answer I get (e.g. maybe I’ll ask “So, where are you from?” or “What school do you go to?”, and they’ll answer, and then I’ll say, ”...Ah, um, okay” and not have anything else to say). It seems to me that a lot of advice on conversation (of the type prepared for people with Asperger’s syndrome, or social anxiety, or general awkwardness) teaches mostly superficial aspects of conversation, and I suspect that there’s a deeper art to it that can’t be conveyed so easily. Probably the best way to develop such a sense is to be the sort of person who is naturally actually curious about other people, but for those of us to whom social curiosity doesn’t come so naturally, learning to fake it well probably requires a much deeper understanding than can be attained by memorizing standard small-talk questions and such. I expect it’s possible to learn to successfully simulate social curiosity, but not if one only understands it at that superficial level.
I expect it’s possible to learn to successfully simulate social curiosity, but not if one only understands it at that superficial level.
Rather than simulating social curiosity, have you considered trying to develop such curiosity? For example, you might right now pick a social situation that’s coming up in the next few days, and set a five minute timer, and, during the next five minutes, write down as many questions as you can about one of the people who will be there. (“How is X’s job going? Why does he tell those stories—is it because he feels good about himself when people laugh? Because he feels awkward and doesn’t know what else to say? Simple habit? ….”)
Definitely should be carefully applied by those listed in the previous comment… after all, you don’t want to go to the complete opposite and turn into an obsessive, grilling another person about their private life.
I tend to find people don’t like that any more than no interest at all. :)
I’ve been able to turn non-social curiosity into good social interaction. Dale Carnegie says that if you want to be a good conversationalist...if you want people to like you… you need to talk about what the other person wants to talk about. And often the other person wants to talk about themselves, if only for a second. But, what happens if 2 Dale Carnegie followers talk? “Enough about me, lets talk about you”. “No no, enough about me, lets talk about you.”
I find a better application is, ask a question, or 2, and then rather than asking more questions, make a comment. Doesn’t have to be perfect. More knowledge (from basic-research-curiousity) gives you more comments you can make. What little thing do you know about what the other person just said? About fishing, or the university of x, or the story they just told. People don’t want to answer questions, they want to relate. “How’s the job going?” “Oh yeah I know what you mean...I had a boss who used to do the same thing.”
Obviously that can get too banal, which is why the basic-research-curiousity pays off: you can elevate the “we relate” by having something more to say, about things.
You’ve already identified the weakness of asking questions. It should come as no surprise to you that Pick Up (“that” subject) teaches one to never ask questions. It is advice for dating, but holds for generally any conversation. Compare and contrast a standard interaction.
Question: “What school did you go to?” This allows-> Answer: “” which segues into.… ”...Ah, um, okay.” It’s a bad conversation track. You’re asking for effort from them while forcing them to respond in a narrow field, which they probably aren’t interested in.
Statement: “I bet you had your pick of colleges.” This allows-> Answer1: “I never thought I’d get in!” Answer2:”″ Answer3: “I went to , I loved the campus.” They can respond in the way that’s most interesting for them. It also weaves in an implicit compliment (eg, the subject was smart and had many opportunities).
Behind every question is a statement. The tricky part is finding out what your question says and how to phrase it best. A statement better expresses your feelings “How are you doing?” → “I hope everything is going well with you.” Statements are more confident and harder to say no to “Would you like to dance with me?” → “I would like to dance with you” And the act of turning a question into a statement lets you know what you’re really saying “Do you come here often?” → “I’m interested in you.”
As a rationalist, that last part is incredibly useful. It’s easy for us to watch what we’re saying when we’re making statements, because the brain can skim the surface and catch the meaning. It’s much more difficult to understand what we’re saying when we’re asking a question. A master conversationalist will understand “Where did you go to college?” as a statement of “I think you’re cute/smart. I want to know where you went so I can relate stories,” even if you aren’t aware of it. If you had said the words explicitly as a statement, you would have obviously caught it. This is the reason you should always check your questions for statements.
Sometimes you really do want to know a particular piece of information. In this case you can actually ask a question, but you need to be aware that you are making a request for information. You should only ask a question if you would feel comfortable saying the statement “I want to know ”. After practicing for a while you will realize that most of your prior questions were actually statements with question marks at the end. Try it out for yourself.
NB, questions can still be used to great effect. Especially for misdirection or anchoring bias. Naturally these are dark side techniques and I shan’t discuss them here. Everything prior is simply good advice for having conversations with strangers.
e.g. maybe I’ll ask “So, where are you from?” or “What school do you go to?”, and they’ll answer, and then I’ll say, ”...Ah, um, okay” and not have anything else to say)
I actually had in mind less personal questions, that might take some research, insight, and work to get a real answer to.
But since you brought it up, a problem I see with these questions is that you want an answer in the form of a place or a school, a complex object with lots of information that you might be interested in responding to, and what you get is the name of a place or a school, which only really helps you if that name points to some information you already have in your model of the place or school that has that name. So, it might be useful to have generic followup questions designed to get actual information that you might respond to, like “What’s fun to do in ?”, or “Who was your favorite professor?” (to be followed up with “Why?” if not implicitly understood).
I actually had in mind less personal questions, that might take some research, insight, and work to get a real answer to.
You’re not talking about ‘rhetorical’ questions, are you? Something like “How could someone do something that stupid?” Can be intended rhetorically even though it’s a question that should probably be answered for real (unlike the more obviously rhetorical “does a bear shit in the woods?”)
The only other non-trivially answered questions that I can think of getting an ignore response are still personal (e.g. what’s your life plan?).
Yes, what I am describing is asking rhetorically a question that should probably be answered for real.
Do you have an example?
I am finding this quite irksome, but I can’t recall exactly what the question was when I clicked on this pattern not quite a week ago. It might have something about the behavior of hospital or doctors, what I remember more clearly is having considered the question for a few seconds and having something to say about, noticing that no one else cared, that this situation was very familiar, and realizing, “duh! they never really wanted an answer.” I then started to rejoin the conversation, which probably didn’t help for recall. I intend to track this more carefully in the future.
I’m guessing, but I think JGW probably was talking about “open questions” rather than rhetorical ones.
Rhetorical ones imply that they shouldn’t be answered. Open questions are ones that, by their nature, require you to answer in more depth than just a single response.
Consider the following. If you start with:
“where did you go to school?” or “what did you study?” as opening questions (which could have simple, one-word replies)
Compare the followup question:
“what subject did you enjoy most?”
where a one-word response would again be an acceptable response. You’ve already specified what you expect them to say—and they’ll dutifully say it and the question is done.
instead try:
“what did you enjoy most in your course?”
you can’t answer that as easily with one word—it makes a person actually think about their response.
Even if they reply quickly (eg “maths’) you can now ask them why and have something else to ask more about. See how far you can go (without boring them or making them feel like you’re a creepy stalker). Can you get them to confess that they secretly had a crush on their Math 101 tutor? :)
Leave your questions open to interpretation, and it’ll get people talking more.
In my experience, people like talking about themselves… and they like talking about why they like what they like. Those are the best smalltalk questions to get started.
Sounds like someone had a crush on their Math 101 teacher....
But yes, this is right on. Ask them a question that allows (but does not require) the other person to tell a story (stories can be quite short...I use the word in a loose sense). Respond with your own, make it as short or shorter, and only one-up someone once.
(by one-up I mean, tell a better story. If they tell you about their cute Math 101 teacher, and you tell them about the time you saw your math teacher on a date or something, and they come back with the math teacher drunk at a casino or something, maybe leave it at that....sometimes people don’t like to have their story trumped, unless you have a REALLY good story to throw down there).
My experience has been similar, and I’ll also add on a related note that probably one big reason why I’m not better at casual conversation is that if I’m not genuinely curious about the answer to a question I’m asking, I often won’t have anything interesting to say as a followup to whatever answer I get (e.g. maybe I’ll ask “So, where are you from?” or “What school do you go to?”, and they’ll answer, and then I’ll say, ”...Ah, um, okay” and not have anything else to say). It seems to me that a lot of advice on conversation (of the type prepared for people with Asperger’s syndrome, or social anxiety, or general awkwardness) teaches mostly superficial aspects of conversation, and I suspect that there’s a deeper art to it that can’t be conveyed so easily. Probably the best way to develop such a sense is to be the sort of person who is naturally actually curious about other people, but for those of us to whom social curiosity doesn’t come so naturally, learning to fake it well probably requires a much deeper understanding than can be attained by memorizing standard small-talk questions and such. I expect it’s possible to learn to successfully simulate social curiosity, but not if one only understands it at that superficial level.
Rather than simulating social curiosity, have you considered trying to develop such curiosity? For example, you might right now pick a social situation that’s coming up in the next few days, and set a five minute timer, and, during the next five minutes, write down as many questions as you can about one of the people who will be there. (“How is X’s job going? Why does he tell those stories—is it because he feels good about himself when people laugh? Because he feels awkward and doesn’t know what else to say? Simple habit? ….”)
Good advice.
Definitely should be carefully applied by those listed in the previous comment… after all, you don’t want to go to the complete opposite and turn into an obsessive, grilling another person about their private life.
I tend to find people don’t like that any more than no interest at all. :)
I’ve been able to turn non-social curiosity into good social interaction. Dale Carnegie says that if you want to be a good conversationalist...if you want people to like you… you need to talk about what the other person wants to talk about. And often the other person wants to talk about themselves, if only for a second. But, what happens if 2 Dale Carnegie followers talk? “Enough about me, lets talk about you”. “No no, enough about me, lets talk about you.”
I find a better application is, ask a question, or 2, and then rather than asking more questions, make a comment. Doesn’t have to be perfect. More knowledge (from basic-research-curiousity) gives you more comments you can make. What little thing do you know about what the other person just said? About fishing, or the university of x, or the story they just told. People don’t want to answer questions, they want to relate. “How’s the job going?” “Oh yeah I know what you mean...I had a boss who used to do the same thing.”
Obviously that can get too banal, which is why the basic-research-curiousity pays off: you can elevate the “we relate” by having something more to say, about things.
You’ve already identified the weakness of asking questions. It should come as no surprise to you that Pick Up (“that” subject) teaches one to never ask questions. It is advice for dating, but holds for generally any conversation. Compare and contrast a standard interaction.
Question: “What school did you go to?” This allows-> Answer: “” which segues into.… ”...Ah, um, okay.” It’s a bad conversation track. You’re asking for effort from them while forcing them to respond in a narrow field, which they probably aren’t interested in.
Statement: “I bet you had your pick of colleges.” This allows-> Answer1: “I never thought I’d get in!” Answer2:”″ Answer3: “I went to , I loved the campus.” They can respond in the way that’s most interesting for them. It also weaves in an implicit compliment (eg, the subject was smart and had many opportunities).
Behind every question is a statement. The tricky part is finding out what your question says and how to phrase it best. A statement better expresses your feelings “How are you doing?” → “I hope everything is going well with you.” Statements are more confident and harder to say no to “Would you like to dance with me?” → “I would like to dance with you” And the act of turning a question into a statement lets you know what you’re really saying “Do you come here often?” → “I’m interested in you.”
As a rationalist, that last part is incredibly useful. It’s easy for us to watch what we’re saying when we’re making statements, because the brain can skim the surface and catch the meaning. It’s much more difficult to understand what we’re saying when we’re asking a question. A master conversationalist will understand “Where did you go to college?” as a statement of “I think you’re cute/smart. I want to know where you went so I can relate stories,” even if you aren’t aware of it. If you had said the words explicitly as a statement, you would have obviously caught it. This is the reason you should always check your questions for statements.
Sometimes you really do want to know a particular piece of information. In this case you can actually ask a question, but you need to be aware that you are making a request for information. You should only ask a question if you would feel comfortable saying the statement “I want to know ”. After practicing for a while you will realize that most of your prior questions were actually statements with question marks at the end. Try it out for yourself.
NB, questions can still be used to great effect. Especially for misdirection or anchoring bias. Naturally these are dark side techniques and I shan’t discuss them here. Everything prior is simply good advice for having conversations with strangers.
I actually had in mind less personal questions, that might take some research, insight, and work to get a real answer to.
But since you brought it up, a problem I see with these questions is that you want an answer in the form of a place or a school, a complex object with lots of information that you might be interested in responding to, and what you get is the name of a place or a school, which only really helps you if that name points to some information you already have in your model of the place or school that has that name. So, it might be useful to have generic followup questions designed to get actual information that you might respond to, like “What’s fun to do in ?”, or “Who was your favorite professor?” (to be followed up with “Why?” if not implicitly understood).
You’re not talking about ‘rhetorical’ questions, are you? Something like “How could someone do something that stupid?” Can be intended rhetorically even though it’s a question that should probably be answered for real (unlike the more obviously rhetorical “does a bear shit in the woods?”)
The only other non-trivially answered questions that I can think of getting an ignore response are still personal (e.g. what’s your life plan?).
Do you have an example?
Yes, what I am describing is asking rhetorically a question that should probably be answered for real.
I am finding this quite irksome, but I can’t recall exactly what the question was when I clicked on this pattern not quite a week ago. It might have something about the behavior of hospital or doctors, what I remember more clearly is having considered the question for a few seconds and having something to say about, noticing that no one else cared, that this situation was very familiar, and realizing, “duh! they never really wanted an answer.” I then started to rejoin the conversation, which probably didn’t help for recall. I intend to track this more carefully in the future.
I’m guessing, but I think JGW probably was talking about “open questions” rather than rhetorical ones.
Rhetorical ones imply that they shouldn’t be answered. Open questions are ones that, by their nature, require you to answer in more depth than just a single response.
Consider the following. If you start with: “where did you go to school?” or “what did you study?” as opening questions (which could have simple, one-word replies)
Compare the followup question: “what subject did you enjoy most?” where a one-word response would again be an acceptable response. You’ve already specified what you expect them to say—and they’ll dutifully say it and the question is done.
instead try:
“what did you enjoy most in your course?” you can’t answer that as easily with one word—it makes a person actually think about their response.
Even if they reply quickly (eg “maths’) you can now ask them why and have something else to ask more about. See how far you can go (without boring them or making them feel like you’re a creepy stalker). Can you get them to confess that they secretly had a crush on their Math 101 tutor? :)
Leave your questions open to interpretation, and it’ll get people talking more. In my experience, people like talking about themselves… and they like talking about why they like what they like. Those are the best smalltalk questions to get started.
Sounds like someone had a crush on their Math 101 teacher....
But yes, this is right on. Ask them a question that allows (but does not require) the other person to tell a story (stories can be quite short...I use the word in a loose sense). Respond with your own, make it as short or shorter, and only one-up someone once.
(by one-up I mean, tell a better story. If they tell you about their cute Math 101 teacher, and you tell them about the time you saw your math teacher on a date or something, and they come back with the math teacher drunk at a casino or something, maybe leave it at that....sometimes people don’t like to have their story trumped, unless you have a REALLY good story to throw down there).
Actually it was Knowledge Based Systems… Cute and made me think. :)
Math 101 I spent up the back next to a Mensa guy who kept distracting me with interesting puzzles… but that’s another story.
What makes you think so? Hope? I suspect most Asperger’s types who learn to engage in conversation don’t simulate social curiosity, they developed it.
Think of this as pinning your hopes on AIXI when instead you could be better off employing some domain specific hack of a cognitive algorithm.
Also, from signaling considerations, faking social curiosity should be difficult, as the signal wouldn’t be reliable otherwise.