Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I read some "pick up artist" literature in college: about two thirds of it is misogynistic garbage, but the remainder has some good tips on general platonic social interaction (and a major issue with insecure men is learning to interact with women in a casual platonic way without acting odd and creepy because they are hoping for more).

- If you aren't good at speaking in a captivating way, literally write out your best stories. People who are good at telling stories get this way from practice: introverts naturally get less practice and thus tend to be less talented at speaking. You can do a significant amount of practice on a story without a partner - develop a few 2-3 minute anecdotes about yourself that have a clear beginning, middle and punchline, and cut all extraneous information that doesn't enhance the listeners enjoyment or teach them something positive about your character. If the conversation with a new person touches on something from one of your anecdotes, you will be able to quickly go into your anecdote and be engaging. The process of editing a couple stories will teach you to revise future stories without writing them down explicitly.

- The Cube is a really great icebreaker when meeting new people and conversation is petering out. https://oliveremberton.com/2014/how-to-connect-deeply-with-a... A couple times, I've captivated groups of 4-6 strangers for about an hour with this. Everyone likes talking about themselves, and it gives people a framework to discuss their self perceptions in a fun way, and everyone learns some things about each other. (The mappings are somewhat arbitrary, I learned it with ladder as work and flowers as friends)



That really has to be one of the more ridiculous ice breakers I've ever seen. I'd ascribe about as much meaning to those supposed relationships as I would to a grocery store horoscope, and in much the same way. If you're inclined to do so, you can go back as you read the explanation of what each thing "means" and pick out all of the bits you agree with to convince yourself that it makes sense.


The key is to tell them what it means, and then ask if they think it is correct. You learn about them from their interpretation of their own results, the symbology is pretty arbitrary.

"I imagined a small dark cube with a light in the middle".

"Cube represents self, do you think small and dark with light in the middle is a good representation of how you perceive yourself?"

"Not really because I'm actually much more ____" When given this context, I found many people will give surprisingly long and interesting justifications for or arguments against their answers.


Obviously this isn't an accurate psychological test. Yet it's a very interesting social tool, because it's more subtle than it seems:

- First, the most shallow interpretation, it sorta works. Not really of course, but I could believe based on empirical evidence that the "mind projecting itself on abstract objects" isn't totally BS. - Second, when you get explained the supposed meanings of each element, you enter an introspective phase. You think about whether it does apply to you, "am I actually a fairly transparent person?", "do I expect my partner to be a part of me?". It doesn't really matter what you answered at first, it's your reflection about it that should lead to a mildly interesting self-questioning - Third, and that's what people good at "basic social skills" have understood, it doesn't even matter if you personally didn't get any insight on yourself, or even if nobody around did. It's a door-opener, a way to engage with people around you, to get personal with them. Is it a shallow outlook on them? Doesn't matter, it's a start, a bond that you can strengthen continuing the discussion.


We obviously have different social circles. I know exactly two kinds of people. The first kind would openly mock me when I got to the "explaining what it all means" part (if they let me get that far at all). The second kind would eat this up and absolutely believe it to be some deep and accurate spiritual insight.


I'm irked after reading that bullshit The Cube thing - probably says a lot about my personality.


>Everyone likes talking about themselves

I do not.


Ironic


If he truly did not care about talking about himself... would he have said so?


> If he truly did not care about talking about himself... would he have said so?

He said that he does not like talking about himself - perhaps that is even why thfuran's comment was short and concise. He did not say that he does not talk about himself.


Could he only cares about correctness, then it becomes the opposite of ironic.


My cube was an ice cube that melted (we're in a desert) before I got to the ladder question. Trying to figure out what that says about me...


You're a smart aleck who likes to break things by bending rules? /s

More seriously, start off cold but adapt to your surroundings and warm up quickly?


Mark Manson's "Models" is a great read if you're looking for a non-PUA book about dating and attracting women in a healthy way.


Calling Mark Manson a non-PUA is about as accurate as calling Obama a non-politician. He’s firmly within the mainstream of that literature. There are 20 pages of results for “Mark Manson” on r/seduction.


Your link to the Cube is great but how do you bring this up in a conversation? I'm trying to imagine being in a social setting, after having a long conversation with someone that's starting to peter out, and then ask, "So I've got a funny question: First I want you to imagine a desert...".


"Hey I read about this personality test game thing on the internet the other day and I've been wondering if it actually works. Do you mind if I try it out on you?"

When I've done it for multiple people, I have each person give their answer for an item before moving onto the next section. This keeps it so everyone feels like they are participating (and usually I've had to talk very little besides reminding the prompt and keeping the circle moving, maybe ask some probing descriptive questions for short answers). Then once everyone has given their answers, reveal the 'meaning' of each thing one at a time, and ask people whether you think it is correct for them. The beauty of the test is that even if it's completely wrong - you'll learn about the person from their explanation of why the reading was off base.

Similar one "walk in the forest" https://forum.gateworld.net/threads/20610-A-walk-in-a-forest




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: