Brain Flossing

I'm not sure if I totally agree with you that social adeptness is something that is not a learned skill. Although I do agree that some people are better (seemingly naturally) at it than others. I just think that the skill set is learned in very early childhood, along with language, walking, hot/cold. It's something that we don't remember learning, so it's that much harder to try to improve upon. There's no easy place to start.

I recently read an article about party dynamics (maybe in the LA Times?), and if I can find it, I'll pass it along. The author approached it from an evolutionary biology point of view. Basically stating that group interactions follow patterns, rhythmns, waves, and that the most socially adept people are good at tuning into these rhythmns - they are better at reading body language, choosing when to jump into a conversation or leave one, matching their speech and body movement patterns to the group. It's something that it so automatic to them, that they aren't aware that they are doing it. The author then tied this into how early man and other pack animals needed to have those skills for survival.
Still, if social adeptness is so basic, then in order to get it would be like learning how to walk again. Something that takes months or years of concentrated directed effort.

That would more appropriately be termed a feed-forward loop.

I'm not entirely convinced by your argument here. Yet I'm also of the opinion that these are inherently non-public issues. It's a mistake to think it's as simple as "be yourself" based on personal experience. I fear this isn't something that can be explained and rationalized, but must come from within.

Obviously these are questions that are very difficult to answer and even more difficult to prove. I am merely giving my observations. I agree with cycl1sta that one learns from an early age how to act in social situations, I still believe in my original hypothesis. I don't think they are mutually exclusive, but its less about learning how to act in social situations than getting positive reenforcement from an early age that when you are yourself and do not 'try' you do better. There may very well be truth to the idea that there are undetectable or at least uneasily identifiable patterns and waves to social interactions, but it may also be true that only by letting the subconscious work without interference can we react to and ride these waves. In this way, trying to detect them might be self defeating. Similar situations where the subconscious is more affective can be seen in sports. If you TRY too hard to hit the ball, you are less likely to hit it. It all happens to quick for the conscious mind to react to. I even notice this in snowboarding and climbing. If I over-think things, it becomes difficult, but if I let myself react it feels natural. In these situations it is confidence that allows you to fully let go and just react. In snowboarding, for example, if you are unsure of yourself, you will be more likely to consciously anticipate and react, which usually leads to overreaction and overcorrection. Of course, my analogy disagrees with my original hypothesis in that sports CAN be learned. However, in my experience, practice is the most important part. Just trying things and seeing the outcome. Eventually, you must learn to just be confident and listen to your subconscious. It is also possible to practice continuously, but never learn to let go and thus never progress beyond a certain point. So perhaps we can learn from the analogy. Thoughts?

I think you've solved the problem already. It's the people that worry about being socially adept that consider themselves socially inept. It's hard for you to hear "Just be yourself" because you want to over complicate it with reason. There is no reason in this, societies have come and gone over hundred of centuries. People have suffered in the same way in social situations as we do today. This is because we get so wrapped up in what people will think. I say who cares what they think. I don't just say this, I mean this....and there's nothing to back it up. More importantly, there's no REASON to back it up. If I fight to try to understand what makes people more socially inept than someone else, I'm going to grow tired and fail in being myself. I know you (wonko) personally and I can say that I've never seen you have a problem communicating with people. He's been around friends of mine that he's never met and I've never seen him have any problem in socializing with them. That goes to show that the problem is not in reality, rather the problem is in the thoughts of yourself or in your head. You'll not accept this because it means you have to accept that the problem is merely created by yourself rather than how other see you. That's it....it's that simple. Quit trying so hard....give yourself a break and just be. Don't ask questions (at least on this particular issue) Just quit worrying about it.

One of the most important aspects of being socially adept is empathy. We are born with a degree
of empathy. It takes a real desire to become proficient at it. Since we are by nature self-centered.
Everyone desires to be socially adept, that doesn’t require repeating, it is a fact. Our desire for
intimacy is universal. Without empathy, we will never have intimacy. Until you master
This skill, it is certainly expectable to act as if.
When we encounter people who seem to be familiar with each other, we may feel out of place but it is presumptuous to think that they have intimate relationships. It only means it’s not the first time they have been together. Intimacy requires the believe that another understands you. The ability to walk in another’s shoes. This requires effort, and practice. Some people are Better at it than others, but everyone can develop this skill. It is easy to spot these people. They will have the best friends, not always the most. This is just my opinion. Being yourself not trying to be someone you are not is good. But. There is always a But. Social skills still require practice. It is certainly something we should not dwell on. Although I believe progress in the area is a worthy desire. When is comes to social skills stagnation is not an option. We will progress or regress. Don’t you think?

The ideas brought forward about the two requirements to social adeptness ring true to me. That for one to be confident and genuine is for him to be socially adept. And although people may argue that social prowess is a learned skill, one that could possibly be learned at an early age, I would say that what they learn is in fact the ability to be confident in a social situation, (to be genuine I dont believe is more personal). I know that I went through an incredible change one summer in junior high, when I first went to work at a summer camp. I spent my summer working as a lifeguard/water sports instructor, and though I found the job challenging, I noticed that many of my co-workers werent up to the challenge. And even though I had the edge in school of being very bright I had never seen this as a particular advantage, It wasnt until that summer that I realized that even If I wasnt as socially powerful as my peers I still had an amazing ability that made me important. I ran the area that summer, I was in charge of a whole team of people who worked for me, and it wasnt like I sat down and decided that I was going to get better at being social, but when I returned to school the next year I had a reason to carry my head high. I had always been very genuine, but people found it awkward and usually shied away from the blunt truth I liked to give. So, all I needed was confidence, and I had found something that gave me strength and something that I could rely on. That year I finally exited this very tight shell I had built around myself, and although people didnt understand my sense of humor right away, and people didnt understand me right away, I had that confidence to back me up. I think that year changed a lot for me, and that summer was key in altering how I saw other people around me, not as something to fear, but as people who had never done the kind of work I had done, people that werent worth being afraid of. It was that confidence that allowed me to escape the walls I had built to protect myself from the shame of being different, and allowed to see my differences as powerfull.

excelent post

I don't buy into the "by nature we are self-centered" argument. It seems to me just as easy to describe that as a tought behaviour.

Kasei, if you don’t believe we are by nature “self-centered” you live in a really wonderful world. Self- preservation is considered one of the strongest drives humans have. Sacrifice is always a decision. We never give up anything or do anything without considering the consequences to ourselves. Those who do what might me considered heroic things, have to always overcome that human trait of self-preservation. That is what is so wonderful about some amazing acts of heroism. If you still don’t believe, find a 2 year old that doesn’t think the world revolves around him.

I've suggested that being self-centered is taught through socialization. As such, arguing against me with examples of heroism and considerations of consequence to self only begs the question. This is not a subject you can easily argue with examples; You mostly either believe it or you don't.

Humans like all creatures of the wild have an enormous will to survive. This manages to manifest itself in two different ways however (much like in the wild), the will towards individual survival, and the will towards survival of the species, or genetic line. You see both cases in the wild; I believe it would be folly to suggest that humans dont act at least in some ways, on both sides. Though I tend to side with kasei on the idea that most of what we consider egoistical (self filled) acts are given to us (ha ha just like rand suggests) from capitalism/private property. However, since there havent been any experiments in anarchy since pre history its hard to back up my statement with any hard or empirical facts. I can only suggest that much like a chimp society, where a balance of individual needs and collective needs is met, a balance also exists for humans. A place where our (quote) rugged (quote), individuality is no longer compromised by the callings of coercive states. A place where we are free to have the power to control our own destinies, is also a place of gentle social interaction as we as humans need associations, and would be willing to sacrifice the some freedoms (of our own free will) to do so.

Human Like all creatures are built to survive, but like most creatures this manifests itself in two ways. Both in the individuals will to survive and in the individuals will for its genetic material to survive, or that of its species/genetic line. You see altruism (a loose definition) occur in the wild in a variety of social insects, and also within many more intelligent mammals (I would mention mole rats, but what I really mean is things like dogs, monkeys, apes, etc.). I would suggest that humans, like many of the species of apes, (chimps, gorillas) exist in such a way that there can exist a balance of individual will to survive, and will to have one social peers survive as well. I do tend to end up on kasseri’s side of this in that I believe most of what we perceive as egotistical(self filled) actions are handed down to us from private property/capitalism. A balance where individual and social needs are met. Although there hasn’t been an experiment in anarchy since pre history, so I can’t base any of this on hard/empirical evidence I can offer up the idea. That where one would find that balance is a place outside of the coercive social demands of a state.

DAR! well both are okay and different, but oh well, I thought it had lost my post.

(hangs head in shame)

ANDERS

This post responds to the earlier part of this discussion:
I'm coming out of nowhere and jumping into this conversation really late, but I'd like to put this on the table: cultural capital.
I grew up in an Asian country where my having an American accent was an instant, unearned passport to being the center of attention-- "People wanted to be with [me], laugh at [my] jokes, listen intently to [my] musings."
I've always been rather shy and I still am, but I was always invited to parties and people forgave me when I stumbled. In fact, I'm told I had an allure, a perception I found amusing even then.
Without getting too much into race issues, I would like to mention that I am Asian and this I believe puts me automatically in a different part of the social hierarchy here in America.
Though my personality has not changed much, people treat me differently. People do not pay much attention to me and when they do, I am usually appraised via a stereotype.
When I first moved to California, I was not clued into the way people treat each other here. I didn't know the catchprases people used to greet each other and I didn't know many pop culture references people would use in conversation.
So, while I definitely agree that personal confidence is important, I want to point out that communication is not only about individuals, but also larger (social, political, economic) schemas. I found the post about "party dynamics" very intriguing, but I also wonder if the amount of power a person had determines conversation rhythms that other less powerful people have to attune themselves to. E.g. if Paris Hilton walked into the room, I don't doubt that people would fall over themselves to talk to her, even if she burped/ farted/ cut you off/ committed every social faux pas known to humankind.
I stumbled on this site and don't usually post here, but this topic interests me so I thought I throw all this out there.

hey this is MOnK of SOCIALLY INEPT a band from elkton MD any who i just learned about being socially inept and i am doin a reshearch paper on it so if any one has any info. for me please e-mail me at bassplayer460@yahoo.com o and we r a heavy meatle band not some pussy rock band

peace MOnK

Social Inepteness as writers and readers would agree is very crippling. I believe that this comes from practice, ie early childhood and the willingness to talk about things from A to Z. For the person that is higher in intelectual capacity and easily gets bored by the nothingness that SOME people talk about it is very hard to participate in others prattling. I believe that overthinking does play a huge role in the long-term effects of ineptness but I also support that in A LOT of situations people don't talk about anything of substance. It is hard for me to get excited about ... when someone is working, what they have ate, the weather, ect. So to conclude if people would talk about more interesting topics, a cure for some of the socially inept might be manifested, but even on a more subtle note, for me, impressionism and foolish ranting and ravings are annoying and paralyzing in progressing towards social excitement and even participating.

PLEASE RESPONG

The issue of most people not wanting to talk about anything of substance seems pandemic. What I've found is that anytime I try and bring up an issue of politics, religion, or philosophy, I get accused of either 'overthinking' and/or conspiracy theory. I do not know if its true, but my experience with European foreigners suggests there isn't the same negative social stigma to 'deep' discsussion there as there is here. Its almost like it is uncool, ie viewed as social ineptitude, to think on any deeper level. Where did this come from? I see parallels between this behavior and various Orwellian stories. People are more likely to go along without complaining if they do not question their lives or what they are doing. This is just the kind of thing people would label conspiracy theory. But our unbridled consumerism without doubt or question lends credability to the notion that companies, marketers and governments WANT us not to think.



Specifically, there are completely off-limit issues, like religion. Though, I have recently seen public debate of religion increase, which gives me hope.



What does it mean to overthink? Is it really bad? Or is it just that it leads to social ineptitude in the ways I describe above?

A major part of what we may call social 'ineptness' comes from the fact that socially successful people tend to want to talk about day to day social issues which affect them, but do not affect their mental security and self beliefs. The socially inept as it were tend to be more questioning of these things in themselves and others.
Socially successful people are like effective modems, reading each others wavelengths and agreeing on the right frequency, where as the people who struggle socially tend to misread important emotional signals. It is best though, not dwell on the negative things, and just try and think about the times you've made people laugh, or achieved something, or simply felt good about you're positive interactions.

Wow, Markus, that is a good geek analogy. It does seem like socially adept people are more aware of the subconscious subtleties of social interaction. Here is where I think we can define overthinking. Entering 'the zone' where you are reading and adapting to subtle social cues requires letting go to some degree. When we TRY and read others and social wavelengths consciously, we are either too slow, or too wrong. We'd talked about this issue further up in the conversation.

My comment has to due with social ineptness and interaction.

I believe, to SOME degree and during certain times that both life and social situations with say an upwards of 4 to 5 people can be looked at like..... a movie. a scene in a play, there are interjections, often loud often ment for the reason to be noticed and often over dramatized. It seems to me that people comment on things and talk in a way to get attention.

But now back to the movie analogy. People can be looked at as characters, just little persons buzzing around trying to fit in. There are different levels of abilities and thus different levels of satisfaction. To those that can notice what I am talking about the willingness to participate in this maze is not something that is fun.

Movie or no movie... interjections and impressionism is evident anywhere and everywhere, let the pain continue

I NEED COMMENTS...talk about the movie part

I agree with wonko on the movie analogy, but think about when your stepping out to watch this "scene", are you being socially inept or adept, you've stopped concerning YOURself with what others think instead your obsessing over how everyone else is striving for social normalcy, either way your a functioning part of society no matter which viewpoint your metaphorical camera is set to. whoa I just blew my own mind

A more positive view on this would be that, if you consider yourself socially inept, and your ineptitude seems to be plaguing those around you then you can consider yourself socially adept for those moments because you are now part of an inept society meaning that you are adept in that society.any views, im not even sure if that makes sense.It does to me but im socially inept so...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)