Warp wrote:

I used to have all those problems too, yah.

>   However, all that is completely different from actually being able to
> socialize and engage in small talk. 

Here's something you may be missing. (I didn't read the whole thread, I 
fear, so this might already have been said.)

Small talk works *way* better when you listen instead of speak. Everyone 
likes to talk about themselves. So until you find common ground, simply ask 
the other person questions about themselves, let them talk about whatever 
they want, and listen for something you can contribute.  Don't be thinking 
about what you're going to *say* next, but instead think about what you're 
going to ask them next.  Of course, once you've talked to the person long 
enough to get past the "I never met you before" stage, it's easier, but you 
want to get past that initial awkwardness of not having anything to talk 
about. But for some it takes a conscious effort to learn to do this.

When you think about it, it's kind of like being a salesman. "Tell me all 
about yourself, and I'll listen until I hear something in common, namely a 
problem you have that our products can cure."

Also, I've found it's amazingly helpful to look people in the eye during a 
conversation. It's something nerds tend not to do. Not only watch the 
person's face, but actually peer directly into one pupil or the other. It's 
a little creepy the first time or two, but it really makes a difference.

>   I wonder if it's the age. Is looking well over 30 some kind of natural
> repellent for people? They are not interested in a mid-aged man as much
> as they are in a younger one?

I think part of it may be that you're getting to the age where most people 
have children, and if you don't have children, there's less to talk about, 
because children pretty much fill up your entire life.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> In fact, rather ironically for a computer nerd
> like me, I often even *prefer* calling by phone rather than writing an email
> because many things are much faster to resolve by phone because the
> necessary conversation can be performed in real-time.

I really hate making phone calls - but I have to agree with you that 
it's usually far, far more efficient for sorting out anything that 
requires some kind of complex negotiation.

(Alternatively, for something that requires conveying intricate 
information, writing tends to be better...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Very much so - I used to have problems like this myself; it is possible
>> to break the cycle, but it's not easy to do.
> 
>   As for me, I don't think I'm very shy. Not anymore at least. (Well, it
> depends on the definition of "shy", but if we define it as getting
> nervous about interacting with people, I don't have a problem with
> that.)

I don't know that it's "nervous" per se - more "hesitant".  I tend to 
dislike using the phone (I often will send my phone to voice mail rather 
than take a call - though usually that's because I'm in the middle of 
something and don't want to lose my train of thought).  Personally, I 
prefer written communications because I have a chance to think about what 
I'm going to say and to research my answer.

I really hate when people leave me a voice mail that is nothing more than 
name, number, and "call me".  I tend to reply via e-mail to those if I 
know the person's e-mail address.

>   Likewise if I need to go in person somewhere, I haven't had a problem
>   with
> that in a long time (even though in the past I was shier about it). Eg.
> if I have to go to some office or whatever to deal with something in
> person (eg. sign papers or whatever), I just go, no problem.
> 
>   However, all that is completely different from actually being able to
> socialize and engage in small talk. And it's enormously different from
> going to an unknown person with no specific reason, just to socialize.
> And yes, especially if that other person happens to be female.

It really is a different situation, absolutely.  It's like a coworker of 
mine said to me back when I was teaching - he described himself as an 
"extroverted introvert" - because when teaching, his personality actually 
changes pretty significantly.  I found that as well for myself - I often 
am a completely different person in front of a class or when doing a 
presentation.  I think it's about control, really, for me.  I always had 
trouble getting people back from break when teaching, but once I got in 
my groove, I could just teach and people would listen to me and interact 
in the class.

I even intentionally developed labs that involved discussion only; the 
guy who taught the class after me dropped them because he wasn't sure how 
to run them, but they worked very well for me - I think partly because I 
had significant hands-on experience with the technology I was teaching - 
that always helps with that sort of situation.

>   I don't know why, but for some reason it seems that people have
>   stopped
> approaching me as well, in social situations. When I was much younger
> (early 20's or such) people were much eager to start sporadic small talk
> for no specific reason than to socialize. Nowadays that just doesn't
> happen. I don't even remember when was the last time that someone wanted
> to socialize out of the blue with me in a social situation.

I don't remember the last time that happened to me either, but that could 
largely be because I don't do that kind of social activity very often.  
If I'm out now, it's with my family and not by myself (or with coworkers 
and not by myself if it's a work-related function).

>   I wonder if it's the age. Is looking well over 30 some kind of natural
> repellent for people? They are not interested in a mid-aged man as much
> as they are in a younger one?

As Darren said, it might be children-related, because they do take up a 
lot of time.  I started late with my stepson (he was 9), and it's still 
amazing to me how much of my time was involved in school and other 
activities - and I didn't mind it at all.

>   If there is indeed such a psychological phenomenon, it only aggravates
> the chronic loneliness problem.

I could see that, yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:20:01 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Warp wrote:
> 
>> In fact, rather ironically for a computer nerd like me, I often even
>> *prefer* calling by phone rather than writing an email because many
>> things are much faster to resolve by phone because the necessary
>> conversation can be performed in real-time.
> 
> I really hate making phone calls - but I have to agree with you that
> it's usually far, far more efficient for sorting out anything that
> requires some kind of complex negotiation.
> 
> (Alternatively, for something that requires conveying intricate
> information, writing tends to be better...)

One of the things I find a lot of geeks do, though, is tend to go into a 
lot of unnecessary detail.  I've long had people joke about my inability 
to write a short e-mail - and have made jokes about it myself.

I had an e-mail earlier today from a developer I work with who wrote a 
single run-on sentence about a two-line code change he was making; it 
wasn't clear to me what it was he was intending to accomplish with this 
(though I could - and did - guess, I've found it's best to be clear up 
front before coding begins with this developer), so I restated it back to 
him with "do I understand that this will [....]" and he sent me a one-
word reply:  YES.

My point is that sometimes it's more effective to say less.  I've even 
had someone ask for input (as part of a group discussion) about becoming 
an executive (long story there and the topic isn't really relevant to 
this discussion).  He'd composed a long e-mail to the CEO of the company 
in question and posted it in a private discussion area for comment.  He 
acknowledged that it was long, but he was trying to decide between 
brevity and explaining his ideas fully.  When talking with executives, 
especially in writing, brevity is important.  They're busy people (or 
they believe they are), so getting to the point quickly is critical.  If 
they want more detail, they'll ask.

That's something I find is generally true about people, executive or not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:09:37 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Small talk works *way* better when you listen instead of speak. Everyone
> likes to talk about themselves. So until you find common ground, simply
> ask the other person questions about themselves, let them talk about
> whatever they want, and listen for something you can contribute.  Don't
> be thinking about what you're going to *say* next, but instead think
> about what you're going to ask them next.  Of course, once you've talked
> to the person long enough to get past the "I never met you before"
> stage, it's easier, but you want to get past that initial awkwardness of
> not having anything to talk about. But for some it takes a conscious
> effort to learn to do this.

I have a very good friend in the UK who made a comment about this, and 
it's absolutely true.  People LOVE to talk about themselves, because it's 
what they know the best.  Ask a couple of questions - "So, what do you 
think about this weather we're having?" or "Did you catch the game last 
night?" or anything starting with "What do you think about ..." will 
generally get a conversation going.

Even if you don't care about the answer, that's a great way to get people 
to start talking.

And I agree with your comment about looking people in the eye while 
talking to them; maybe not a constant thing (that gets creepy after a 
while), but people do respond to being looked at.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b67555e@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

> I really hate when people leave me a voice mail that is
nothing more than
> name, number, and "call me".  I tend to reply via e-mail
to those if I
> know the person's e-mail address.--Jim

I do that too...
I can't answer the phone while I'm
programming or working on a server...

~db

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Even if you don't care about the answer, that's a great way to get people 
> to start talking.

I think perhaps it's better to say "even if you only care about the answer 
to the extent that it gives you something further to ask about."  Asking and 
then ignoring the answer is off-putting as well.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> They're busy people so getting to the point quickly is critical. 

Him: "That's good, but can you make an executive summary?"

Me: "You really want an executive summary of three sentences?"

Him: "I think it would be a good idea."

Me: "Then it's probably not worth presenting at all."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I really hate making phone calls - but I have to agree with you that
> it's usually far, far more efficient for sorting out anything that
> requires some kind of complex negotiation.

The main problem I see with email exchanges is this:  people don't like to read.

Nerds like you and me, yes, general population, no.  Doesn't matter if you have
a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute detail:
people just won't read and will eventually phone you to talk "about the email".

Hate the phone.  Hate dumb people.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Personally, I
> prefer written communications because I have a chance to think about what
> I'm going to say and to research my answer.

Precisely!

Despite being quite verborragic on the web/newsgroups, I'm a pretty silent soul
on the physical side.  I don't know, I think it's the lack of a blinking
cursor...

> >   I wonder if it's the age. Is looking well over 30 some kind of natural
> > repellent for people? They are not interested in a mid-aged man as much
> > as they are in a younger one?

Yes.  Young ladies want young, muscular fellows or rich middle-aged folks.
Older women want youngsters.  People with kids only care for the kids to care
for the aged weirdo at the next cubicle.  Only geeks care for geeks.

Post a reply to this message