It makes me sad that my reaction to this piece is so cynical, but I really think that 90% of the "how" in this article is "be an older British lady". If you're missing that vital piece you'll quickly meet many people who "don't have any money", or just remembered they meant to be walking on the other side of the street, or worse. Talking to strangers when people see you as a threat feels really shitty (for everyone involved) and can be dangerous.
I think you're wrong personally. I'm very far away from being "an older British lady" and agree a lot with the article.
Honestly, in the least combative & confrontational possible, your thoughts there are just an excuse to not reach out and engage with the rest of your world. It's a little sad (not you, the situation itself) because if more people had that same thought, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with no one talking to each other and those people you allude to being an afraid to talk too for whatever reason become the only people out there talking. We're certainly not there yet and I hope we never get there
I agree that it's a sad state of affairs, and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe I can explain my perspective in a little more detail.
In my typical day at work (teacher), I spend hours talking with dozens of people. A large part of why I chose this work was to escape the isolation that I felt previously when I was doing remote software work. I attend weekly religious services and make an effort to stay for the social hour afterwards. When I go to parties, I don't feel like I have an unusually hard time talking with people. I'm not always as engaged with the world as I'd like, but I don't feel that I'm avoiding it either.
But this article isn't broadly about having conversations with new people: it's about approaching strangers in public settings one-on-one (the article mentions a bus stop, the street, and a mostly empty train carriage), where there's no expectation of social interaction. This is a different situation with its own set of pitfalls. Nobody is going to assume that I'm trying to rob them when I introduce myself at Quaker meeting. No one is going to think I'm a creep for asking a student about their hobbies while I'm at school. We don't see articles about people getting shot for starting up a conversation at a party.
But all of that goes out the window in the settings that the author describes. It's funny, the author mentions feeling like it was "rude and unsafe" to start a chat during the pandemic. I felt like talking to strangers in public got much easier during the pandemic, when people were desperate for any sort of in-person conversation. It's the normal times when this sort of interaction feels rude and unsafe.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, maybe it would be fine for me to let my guard down a little. I think that loneliness is a huge issue these days and I'm grateful for the efforts people are making (including the author of the article) to address it. But approaching strangers in public in the way the author describes is a special case that is *much* more fraught than other types of social interaction, and is a lot harder for certain people to do successfully. I wish it weren't that way, and maybe it's worth pushing back against, but that doesn't change the current reality. Some people might not feel this way, but they're probably the people for whom it's not true.
I completely agree with you here, you are being considerate and aware. There are times and places where things are more appropriate and although I do think we can all benefit in lowering our guard and being more brave in having conversations with others. I disagree with the other poster about how every good socially successful person has creeped someone out, I think this is always something we should be considerate about and not just take it as a fact. Conversations involve two people, and we should always be considerate of the other instead of using it transactionally to further our own growth at their expense. I also really dislike the shared source of where their idealogy comes from (alpha male.. yuck). I think you are participating in your community and talking to many people, if you find that you'd like to lower your guard and talk to strangers, I have a strong feeling that what is intuitive to you would be the right thing to do
>First, there is no such thing as a [socially] successful person who has never ever creeped anyone out. Give yourself permission to be creepy. I am not saying that you should go around trying to creep people out; of course, if you know something is going to scare someone, you shouldn’t do it; it is best that one avoid becoming Harvey Weinstein. But miscommunications, awkwardness, and misunderstandings happen. Sometimes people make mistakes. You are not going to become Harvey Weinstein by accident. Most people have interacted with someone who has creeped them out at some point, and it does not exactly cause lifelong damage. And while there can be some negative consequences, particularly of creeping people out at work, if you ask [about] a random stranger['s day] at a bookstore or something and they’re creeped out, you know what will happen? Absolutely nothing. The [social] police will not come lock you up for creepiness in the third degree.
Lightly adapted from [1], which is actually the best article online about how to find love and date.
[1] https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/models-a-summ...
This was an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it. Its all very geographical context dependent I suspect and that's where difference in perspective can be quite different.
One thing though is why you see new people as any different than strangers? I'm not a Quaker or ever attended a quaker meeting (but have always liked the ethos of the vibe) so don't know how that goes. But i've spent time in christian churches in my younger days and even though we were all there for the same reason, those people were still also strangers. Some already had their cliques they'd speak to and catch up with and I'm sure if someone outside that spoke to them the same double take that initially occurs talking to any new person or stranger would still occur there. Some people would want to continue chatting, some people would rather just talk to whoever they were talking to before. But its still fundamentally the same thing as talking to (or attempting to talk to and being shutdown by) someone doing the same thing you are currently doing, whether that's being on a train or sitting at a cafe etc.
At church or during social gatherings in a friend's home, there is a certain set of expectations of behavior which are much more well defined and widely understood than the behavior you can expect from random people traveling though the NYC streets or subway.
There are settings where I'm much more likely to engage in conversation with a random stranger than others, because I know it's far less likely that they will react unpredictably and/or try to scam/hurt me.
Again maybe its a geographical thing since I don't live in NYC, but I have visited several times, so i have narrower perception of this. My view and experience is that its far more likely that engaging with a random stranger that they will either politely ignore you, go on their way than react unpredictably and/or try to scam/hurt you. Similarly, its more likely that they will respond to you (even if its a throwaway reply and thats that) than react unpredictably. A society where those two statements aren't true doesnt exist as it would be complete chaos with no interaction between anyone at all
>Your thoughts there are just an excuse to not reach out and engage with the rest of your world.
My thoughts are formed from personal experience. You get a few experiences and you get the hint.
It's interesting because it's undoubtedly true that bias and prejudice affect one's interactions with the world. At the same time, it's true to that this can contribute to a vicious cycle via self-fulfilling prophecy.
I would say that sometimes you have to make a distinction between truths about the world and beliefs that can be helpful to you personally; sometimes these are in contradiction with each other, so you may find that you have to prefer to fiction to the truth in order to achieve better results.
This seems to be very common and accepted wisdom in the world of sports: a weaker opponent going against a stronger opponent may have virtually no chance of success, but they can marginally improve those chances via "belief."
So be an older British lady? You get to decide how people see you. Hair, clothes, body language, smile, is 90% of how people decide whether they want to interact with you.
When I dye my hair all kinds of colors, random people talk to me (and the specific colors even dictate who talks). When I dress up in a suit, people treat me more seriously. When I dress like a contractor and drive my truck, regular dudes talk to me at gas stations. And when I dress queer, women (and some dudes) smile at me.
I'm not even outgoing personality-wise, which would help more. Personality's the mental equivalent of physical appearance. Think of it like acting: actors pretend to be a certain way, and if it feels genuine, it makes us love or hate them, intrigued or bored. It's a lot more work than changing clothes, but it works no matter what you wear.
I don't think older British lady is in the cards for me but I get your point. One of my friends has a dog (a very cute little yorkie) who I take on walks fairly often. Let me tell you: I get so many people coming up to me wanting to talk when I'm out walking that dog. It's like I'm suddenly transported to a different universe where people are 100x more sociable.
It makes sense: people love dogs. It gives us something in common and is a starting point for conversation. And people with cute dogs seem much less threatening.
But I also kind of resent it. I wish people would want to talk to me when I'm just me.
Don’t feel bad please. There’s a flip side to all these sociable people which you are sensing. It’s the fallacy of “winning friends and influencing people”. Suppose you are sociable and use the tricks to get to know people (take an interest in their interest, ask for favors, etc) the reality is it will almost never be reciprocated. You get a bunch of people to like you but they will never know you because they’re pitiful and shallow. After a while you will resent them and just skip it all.
> You get to decide how people see you. Hair, clothes, body language, smile, is 90% of how people decide whether they want to interact with you.
I see what you're getting at, but also this take kinda annoys me because it falls into the bucket of implying a personal fault. If people don't socialise with you then it must be because you do or don't do X, Y, Z. "Just do X" and you'll become a social butterfly.
Based on my personal experience, I don't know if I buy it. I guess I'm a regular enough guy, but seriously almost never, across my whole life, does someone invoke random socialisation with me. Yet I know people who can't even take the bus without strangers striking up conversations and hassling them, while they are actively trying to be antisocial. What magic trick are these people performing? Can I learn the same trick? What if I don't want to perform it? I think the reality is that for some (many?) people, it just doesn't work out and it's not necessarily due to any particular flaw.
As someone who both experienced phases in life where no one approached me and phases were I get approached regularly, it's a mix of external signifiers and some internal woo stuff that people don't really understand conciously. Or said another way, when someone says you have to "look approachable" what they actually mean is that a) you have to present yourself externally in a way that makes people more likely to engage you (the aforementioned hair, clothes etc.) and b) you have to internally be open to the world (which is what dictates your body language in subtle ways that apparently get picked up). The issue is when someone says something like "have an open body language" is that it's impossible to 24/7 fake a certain type of body language, you actually have to believe it.
If you are naturally a distrusting person people will pick up on it, just how people will pick up if you're naturallly an open person. (The true trick is realizing that "naturally" can be changed)
I do see what you mean but again I'm not sure if I buy it, because it still sounds pretty meritocratic. I have been through times in life with severe social anxiety and times without, and the quantity of approach hasn't really changed. And doesn't explain the people who get approached even when trying to be closed off (I mean just listen to women complain how they're constantly hounded by men no matter what they do).
Also, what about neurodivergent people who may express their openness/closedness somewhat differently? Are they screwed no matter what?
I won't say you can't do anything to influence your approachability, but I really do think there is a very large component which is essentially fixed, and people rarely acknowledge this (which is annoying).
As part of a smalltalk training, we had to go out and approach strangers in the public. I entered a tram to try my luck. As soon as as I sat down, someone else started to talk to me, and we had a nice conversation. I didn't even need to break the ice myself. So I can (anecdotally) confirm that people can perceive if you want to connect or rather want to be left alone.
Yeah. That's something I constantly worry about. If I'm in a random scene, most people don't want a large black man approaching them. The calculus completely changes.
That's why I gotta pick my venues. But those venues are shrinking and growing farther apart.