Social skills to pay the bills

[wadlez]

There is no such thing as social skills.

‘Social skills’ is a common term which is generally used to explain why some people excel in social situations while others are as awkward as a boner during a prostate examination. Most people use it and everyone has heard it, but have you ever stopped to think about what it really means and what the use implies?

"He just doesn’t have any social skills". Think back to when you last heard (or used) this expression. It was probably used on a socially unpalatable and unpopular individual after recounting one of his social faux pas or passing on a description of their character. Intuitively you would assume that someone who would act better in the same situation you were describing, or someone who has a solid group of friends and is quickly accepted, is due to them having better "social skills". The level of development of this skill set is a satisfying explanation for most people but when analysed this could only be true if everyone was a sociopath and all interactions/conversations were insincere. In this blog entry I am going to explain why "social skills" don’t really exist and then shed light on the self serving motives behind the use and acceptance of this term.

The idea of social skills is basically unwritten and so obvious they don’t need to be explicitly stated. The general shared notion of social skills being that, popular outgoing individuals utilise their experience and knowledge of how to talk to people as a skill set when interacting, which allows them to be more successful. And of course a comparatively unsuccessful individual is limited in these skills due to being undeveloped and sadly in the minds of many, inferior in ability. luckily this is absolutely ridiculous for these reasons.

1. Contrary to the foundation of this notion, conversations have content, people are actually engaged in what they are talking about and this comes from shared interests and an actual mutual exchange of interesting information. If someone who likes a particular sport comes across another fan of the said sport, they will enjoy having a conversation about the sport. An individual who hates the sport however will find this very boring. Extend this over simplification to account for peoples varying orientation of personalities, perceptions, beliefs, intelligence and all the other attributes you can think of which explain the huge variation you see in people to actually understand why some get along like a house on fire and others despise each other.
2. Attractiveness, group membership/hierarchy’s and instinctual intuitive social subsystems of the brain are actually responsible for how you perceive someone, which in turn dictates if you like/accept someone (these things generally beyond your conscious control).

So if an individual does not have the same grounded interests etc as others, they simply won’t get along, hence are unpopular. Furthermore if this orientation of interests makes them unattractive, not perceived as tough or cool and finds them on the bottom of the pecking order, they won’t have as many friends and will be socially awkward to many. The common beliefs and the concept of social skills are contrary to the two above stated points, which renders people either as robots or sociopaths in order to be true, with people interacting only for goals and everyone being identical in disposition.

When observers, people attribute actions and behaviours of others to be idiosyncratic and caused by internal stable attributes, e.g. he crashed his car because he is a bad driver. From first person perspectives though people have been found to be more likely to attribute causes to external unstable factors e.g. the road was slippery. This is known as fundamental attribution error and is the root of why the social construct of "social skills" as described is so commonly accepted. This is actually the basis for many false perceptions and shared beliefs. The "social skills" construct is also very intuitive and accepted and used with no conscious thought as it appeals to many intuitive subsystems evolved in the human mind, this allows it to be quickly acquired and transmitted (as per the meme concept coined by Richard Dawkins).

The problem is that this is a very destructive notion to many individuals. This mistake in logic has people incorrectly and unfairly labelled which distorts there name/image, making it acceptable for them to be shunned or looked down upon. Not understanding the actual cause of social acceptance and popularity also creates false value systems which many compete and base/shape their opinions of others. Imagine if it was common for situational factors and the variations in character to be correctly evaluated rather than ignored when assessing an individual and their actions, in particular the affect this would have those with superficial value systems. It would be a massive step forward for society.

 

[Beat Mango]

Great post, hopefully this widespread and as you say potentially harmful myth will be shattered soon. A couple of things, though:

- there is such thing as social etiquette, and this can be (and only be) learned, much like a skill, and has very real benefits.
- people don't only have conversations due to shared interest in content; many people, invariably extroverts, are stimulated by the presence of others and this leads them to a kind of creation of content.
- I'm sceptical that society is capable of any massive step forward, ie: there is no progress, only change.
- you didn't provide an alternative to the idea of socialising as a skill. Allow me: socialising is a drive, not a skill.

 

[wadlez]

- there is such thing as social etiquette, and this can be (and only be) learned, much like a skill, and has very real benefits.

Yeah well social etiqutte isnt really what is being called into question here, its social skills as the common accepted explanation for popularity but I see what you mean. I have excluded that only Thinking types would really have "social skills " as its not intuitive for us and we have to make logical rules to compensate.

people don't only have conversations due to shared interest in content; many people, invariably extroverts, are stimulated by the presence of others and this leads them to a kind of creation of content.

There are lots of reasons why people talk, this was one example but mainly I am pointing out that an individual needs a background, history and personality to provide the content and the interest of conversations, its not faked or made spontaneously. I tried not to bring MBTI into it to so your average person would understand without having to learn about MBTI. We of course know about feeling types ,extroverts etc and see how social skills would be a redundant explanation compared to the orientation of someones personality in regards to MBTI.

I'm sceptical that society is capable of any massive step forward, ie: there is no progress, only change.

Same

you didn't provide an alternative to the idea of socialising as a skill. Allow me: socialising is a drive, not a skill.

Socialising doesnt need an alternative for this explanation, rather success in socialising does, and its not due to "Social skills".

 

[kantor1003]

I disagree completely. Lets say you have a star trek gathering, person A and person B meets there and they have an ok conversation. Then you have person C and D hooking up at the gathering having a Great conversation. People differs greatly in their ability to express themselves and/or conveying their ideas in an interesting manner, which leads to different qualities of conversation. I think learning to express oneself in a concise manner, or share your thoughts in a more interesting way is something that can be learned.
Your take basically portrays to me the idea that you are who you are and there's no bother to improve even if you find yourself not having quality conversations with quality friends. No, I think one can improve ones social life and using the term social skill to describe this form of improvement, lack thereof or the way in which an individual conveys himself is appropriate imo.

 

[wadlez]

kantor1003, A quick question which helps me decide the best way to respond. Do you think that its possible to change your MBTI type?
Also if you dont mind, to what extent do you think its possible to change your own personality?

 

[Beat Mango]

I disagree completely. Lets say you have a star trek gathering, person A and person B meets there and they have an ok conversation. Then you have person C and D hooking up at the gathering having a Great conversation. People differs greatly in their ability to express themselves and/or conveying their ideas in an interesting manner, which leads to different qualities of conversation. I think learning to express oneself in a concise manner, or share your thoughts in a more interesting way is something that can be learned.
Your take basically portrays to me the idea that you are who you are and there's no bother to improve even if you find yourself not having quality conversations with quality friends. No, I think one can improve ones social life and using the term social skill to describe this form of improvement, lack thereof or the way in which an individual conveys himself is appropriate imo.

Yes we can improve to an extent, but it's much like personal fitness: I can improve my physique by going to the gym, but I'll never look like Schwarznegger or run as fast as Usain Bolt (which is a good case in point - would you call Bolt's speed a skill, or an ability?). And even then, that only refers to more etiquette-heavy encounters such as when you first meet someone, it can never replace real chemistry...

 

[wadlez]

that only refers to more etiquette-heavy encounters such as when you first meet someone, it can never replace real chemistry...

Very well said

 

[kantor1003]

kantor1003, A quick question which helps me decide the best way to respond. Do you think that its possible to change your MBTI type?
Also if you dont mind, to what extent do you think its possible to change your own personality?

If we accept the mbti, then it shouldn't be possible to change your type, only develop your functions. Regarding your second question, it is a really tough one. The honest answer would be "I don't know". I don't think it's possible to change your "core" self (and that shouldn't be something you'd want to pursuit), but I think you can improve aspects of yourself. And with regards to social interaction, you don't really need to change yourself, just be able to present yourself better.. with that said, I have tried new concepts, or approaches to social interaction lately.. and if you do that long enough, you'd be surprised how some things that wasn't You before, or wouldn't have felt natural, suddenly becomes an integrated part of you.
If you have a situation and are to do an action to get an outcome/reaction, you usually go about it in accordance to what is "you", or your way to go about it.. and you get similar results because of it.. if you are to change your action (it will feel unnatural at first for sure), you will get a different result/outcome/reaction - if that result pleases you more (or is closer to what you want) than previous results it will be in your best interest to permanently change your action.. and with repetition (you most likely will repeat something that have given you a good outcome) it will feel "natural".

 

[kantor1003]

Mango:
If you agree that we can improve to some extent, isn't that improvement "social skill" related?

 

[wadlez]

"and if you do that long enough, you'd be surprised how some things that wasn't You before, or wouldn't have felt natural, suddenly becomes an integrated part of you." Well thats not a social skill then, thats a change of sorts in the persons values and interests, so thats not utilising a skill to get a goal from a static position.

This is important because if an individual could not adapt to these interests EG an introvert could not get into live music, then they wouldnt get along with rock groupies unless they faked there disposition and implemented learnt rules for how to socialise. This would mean: In his spare time researching rock bands etc to know what to say, memorise then use this in conversations (even though rock bores him to death), aswell as forcing and being concious of all his actions. This is sociopathic as the conversations are completly faked on his side, the relationship and mutual enjoyment of the situation just an act. The crazy part is that this is what social skills implys and people use social skills to explain why all people are successful socially (not just the logical Thinking type in this example). This is due to them not of course conciously running through what social skills are of course, I dont think that anyone would actually think this.

 

[kantor1003]

One thing; Let's say you research, observe someone or read for example, a way to do something in a social setting and you apply this yourself, which in turn brings you closer to what people generally consider "socially skilled" - you would then have actively applied something you have learned from another source in order to become more socially adept, wouldn't this be utilizing a skill?

I like the way you confuse me and make me second guess even the word "skill"

 

[wadlez]

One thing; Let's say you research, observe someone or read for example, a way to do something in a social setting and you apply this yourself, which in turn brings you closer to what people generally consider "socially skilled" - you would then have actively applied something you have learned from another source in order to become more socially adept, wouldn't this be utilizing a skill?

Yes, thats a perfect example of utilising a "social skill"

 

[kantor1003]

Then how can you say that there is no such thing? I have done this several times, and in some instances they have become ingrained in me - to which point you might argue that it isn't a social skill being applied anymore - but that is just splitting hairs isn't it?
Also, I am sure that you as well have adapted mannerisms, maybe subconsciously, from other people because you admired that mannerism, or what that mannerism resulted in.

 

[wadlez]

I have excluded that only Thinking types would really have "social skills " as its not intuitive for us and we have to make logical rules to compensate.

There is possibly such thing, but only in theory, the main point is though that this logical application of a skill are what people most commonly attribute to success in social situations and this is just insane.
Like you for instance you would be thinking your utilising a social skill, do you think that joe Extroverted Feeling type who is a millions times better than you at socialising is just utilising heaps of these tricks and skills?

Its like reading a manual of how to interact with humans, only people who people say have no social skills would try to do this.

Finally, I dont think these skills would actually be possible to implement and get any practical resut, theres no way someone whos trying to use social skills could ever be friends with me or anyone I know, they just couldnt keep up.

 

[echoplex]

OP:
You make some good points. I agree that the concept of social skills is overused, or perhaps more accurately, the consideration of other variables, like the ones you mentioned, is underused.

A few things to pick at:

- A 'skill' is something that is learned and cultivated. The use of the natural 'gifts' of charisma, charm, good looks, etc. cannot be attributed to social skills. I think we agree here.

- You say that things like common interests and attractiveness are the primary sources of social success, but doesn't it require skills to know how to find and engage the people most likely to have common interests and/or find you attractive? Even a perfect scenario will go nowhere if neither party initiates a conversation. Knowing how to do so is a skill, imo. Even knowing how to find compatible people online is a skill.

- Aren't there some things that virtually all people have in common? Most everyone likes to laugh, so learning a few jokes can help, right? Most everyone likes people who are polite and respectful, so learning to be less judgmental and more accepting of others should help too. Though, granted, these sorts of commonalities are probably less interesting to people because they are assumed to begin with, but for people who lack them, cultivating them could make a big difference.

- Some people are initially wary of strangers, and the ability to gain these people's trust long enough to establish the presence of common interests requires some sort of ability. This is often as simple as jumping through a few hoops until the person lets their guard down. If the guard never comes down, how can a successful relationship ever happen?

 

[Saeros]

Suppose that a child is taken at birth and raised in a dark room with no social contact. Will this child, upon being released as an adult, inherently possess the required skills to engage someone in conversation? Under these conditions, would the child's personality still develop in such a way that he can have a meaningful conversation and achieve 'social success'? To what extent is our personality really fixed from birth? Are we, as people, not constantly changing, and developing?

 

[wadlez]

You say that things like common interests and attractiveness are the primary sources of social success, but doesn't it require skills to know how to find and engage the people most likely to have common interests and/or find you attractive? Even a perfect scenario will go nowhere if neither party initiates a conversation. Knowing how to do so is a skill, imo. Even knowing how to find compatible people online is a skill.

This case doesnt really work when actually applied to real people because individuals are rarely and definately not typically isolated in a position with no known contacts and have to find and engage people to make friends. Even if this was the case it would only be so once, and then they would have a group which they would have to maintain and climb in status. If someones social group and status was constantly in flux due to being ostracised from every group of friends he makes this may be possible, or if he had to move constantly for work obligations.
If someone has a job where they see the same people everyday (or school) and a home that doesnt move, they would be known by many people and the amount of friends they have would quickly be shaped by everything other than there ability to introduce themselves to people.

Aren't there some things that virtually all people have in common? Most everyone likes to laugh, so learning a few jokes can help, right? Most everyone likes people who are polite and respectful, so learning to be less judgmental and more accepting of others should help too. Though, granted, these sorts of commonalities are probably less interesting to people because they are assumed to begin with, but for people who lack them, cultivating them could make a big difference.

Even if it does your talking about people who lack them could possibly use them, I'm pointing out that social skills is the common explanation for why people who are succesful socially do better than others.

Most everyone likes people who are polite and respectful, so learning to be less judgmental and more accepting of others should help too.

Not in the real world, you have to be respectful to some and dispectful to others depending on group status and membership, you have to vary your level of respect depending on person and situation, you could never be a popular bad ass type from just being respectful. Also learning to do so implys the person learning it is retarded, why does he need to learn to say please and thankyou when everyone just knows this? I've never heard of anyone learning to be nice unless the person is autistic or mentally impaired.

Some people are initially wary of strangers, and the ability to gain these people's trust long enough to establish the presence of common interests requires some sort of ability. This is often as simple as jumping through a few hoops until the person lets their guard down. If the guard never comes down, how can a successful relationship ever happen?

Again, once your in a relationship this wouldnt really matter, unless you find yourself constantly needing to make new relationships and never maintaining one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A socially sterile individual walks into a room, he has no inclination to have any defining features of trends/interests or anything to convey a personality someone could be familiar with. Logically he chooses what to wear as he has statistically found what clothes result in the most positive responses and acceptance. He wants to make friends because he is conciously aware of the rewards gained when a human gets a "friend". He targets then engages an individual, working through an introduction routine and then using there feedback to trigger other routines preconceived to match to these individuals. During this process the person is completely detached from the conversation making sure not to express any real opinion of his own or to show what he really feels. Although the actual conversation took only 15 minutes, he spends 12 hours a day studying possible people he may encounter and conversations. He is a master of psychology and every thought is completely logical.

Being popular sounds like heaps of effort, sociopathic and pretty robotic, its almost as if these people actually express there opinions, are engaged emotionaly and most of the processing is unconcious and intuitive (hence they actually feel and are these people). That way they could just relax, watch tv, work and have no need to be masters of the social sciences.

Knowing very popular people personaly I can assure you that you guys, who I assume to be more or less as popular as other intps, have way better "social skills" and there use and the belief in there efficiacy is actually detrimental, as your breaking these things down logically which kills Feeling.

Suppose that a child is taken at birth and raised in a dark room with no social contact. Will this child, upon being released as an adult, inherently possess the required skills to engage someone in conversation? Under these conditions, would the child's personality still develop in such a way that he can have a meaningful conversation and achieve 'social success'? To what extent is our personality really fixed from birth? Are we, as people, not constantly changing, and developing?

Theres no room in this thread for a nature vs nurture debate, I was asking kantor about his take on the possibility of changing MBTI to help me respond but thats all.
Maybe start another thread, would be interesting.

 

[kantor1003]

There is possibly such thing, but only in theory, the main point is though that this logical application of a skill are what people most commonly attribute to success in social situations and this is just insane.
Like you for instance you would be thinking your utilising a social skill, do you think that joe Extroverted Feeling type who is a millions times better than you at socialising is just utilising heaps of these tricks and skills?

Its like reading a manual of how to interact with humans, only people who people say have no social skills would try to do this.

Finally, I dont think these skills would actually be possible to implement and get any practical resut, theres no way someone whos trying to use social skills could ever be friends with me or anyone I know, they just couldnt keep up.

I see your point, but as I mentioned before everyone adapts mannerisms from others, either consciously or subconsciously or else there wouldn't be any social norms at all, would it? If you spent every day of the week actively socializing in a social environment, you would be more adept at interacting with people then you would if you spent every day of the week alone. Some people are naturally more people persons, they enjoy sharing the company of others and spend most of their time hanging with friends, so of course a person that dislike spending too much time with others will be inferior because he lacks the experience.

"Finally, I dont think these skills would actually be possible to implement and get any practical results"

How do you know this? Have you tried? I have, hence my temporal conclusion that it is possible. I don't know yet to what extent, or longterm effects of trying to adapt drastic changes in mannerisms, but that's another topic.

 

[wadlez]

I see your point, but as I mentioned before everyone adapts mannerisms from others, either consciously or subconsciously or else there wouldn't be any social norms at all, would it? If you spent every day of the week actively socializing in a social environment, you would be more adept at interacting with people then you would if you spent every day of the week alone. Some people are naturally more people persons, they enjoy sharing the company of others and spend most of their time hanging with friends, so of course a person that dislike spending too much time with others will be inferior because he lacks the experience.

I dont think this challenges anything we havent covered, maybe just think about what I have wrote for a while and let it marinate.

How do you know this? Have you tried? I have, hence my temporal conclusion that it is possible. I don't know yet to what extent, or longterm effects of trying to adapt drastic changes in mannerisms, but that's another topic.

Yes unfortunately I have and know others who have, either me or someone I know closely has tried a huge range of thse theorys from from NLP, body language courses to books on how to pick up woman. On top of this since I study psychology and constantly think of humans and behaviour I probably have more "Social skills" than most people and can tell you that analysing these things is destructive, nothing beats your natural intuition and being sincere.
For starters I have seen people become neurotic from these personal development social skills theorys, gave them massive anxiety but they had invested to much to give up and had too strong a belief in the theory and suffered mental break downs. Also bringing such things into your logical mind has the opposite effect you would hope for as Thinking is the poison for Feeling, if you understand what I mean, if you dont you might find out soon enough.

 

[kantor1003]

I dont think this challenges anything we havent covered, maybe just think about what I have wrote for a while and let it marinate.

Ok, before I post anything further I'll reread your posts more thoroughly when I get the time. Sorry in advance if I have displayed ignorance. Sometimes I make the mistake of reading someones thoughts too fast.

 

[echoplex]

wadlez:
Yes, someone already immersed in a social group will often deal with less awkward social initiations than someone without a group, and will likely feel less like a social 'failure' despite how dealings with other groups go. However, can we assume that everyone only wants/needs to belong one social group? What if someone's current social group is not satisfactory to them (a good example is work because that group isn't chosen)? It would be important to them to find and engage other groups to find 'better' people. Also, even if someone is minimally content with their current social group(s), there is much to be gained by having the skills to engage virtually any group. Having such skills would maximize the odds of finding the 'best' (most compatible) people, and would also be beneficial in things like dating and networking.

Though, we might say such skills aren't particularly necessary, but they can still be quite useful for some, depending on the degree of social fulfillment they are seeking.

 

[wadlez]

Ok, say they get 2, or 3, or 4 new groups. Great, they have them then everything else sets in and there useless again. Doesnt matter anyway because I think its safe to say that the initial talking to someone is pretty simple for any able bodied human to exceed the abilities of memorised social skills, the want and feeling that your supposed to act this way is the actual factor for whether you try.
Personally small talk and pleasantrys makes me cringe, so social skills wouldnt help at all. If I value the other person though I would talk to them, and the initial rote social skills would quickly be thrown out if any curve ball came along and would be completely useless anyway as intuition, and in this case sencerity, would dominate/replace it.
Should I find my self in a situation where I am engaging someone I dont actually like where I have only feigned interest in the conversation then this is where the theory of social skills is meant to come into play (like if I was starting a cult).
Here I, as an INTP, would probably be so on the back foot compared to the thousands of others the average person is used to talking to who are being sincere or are Feeling types that I would come accross retarded (Only a very desperate and lonely individual could join my cult, unless I found Extroverted Feeling type recruiters ). People have ideals for who they like as well, so I would be faking an entire persona as I am not alligned with the person.

At this point we have to admit, even If you still cling to the belief in practical social skills, at the very least they are rarely used, hence the typical explanation of social skills is clearly wrong, therefore the point of the argument is correct.

For future posters: Lets try to move on from posting every small theoretically ideal situation where you think social skills could possibly be used, as even if you dont believe my argument for why there impossible in reality, they are way to limited in scope to negate this argument.

 

[echoplex]

But this isn't just about groups and belonging to them, which is important too. This is also about the ability to go anywhere, anytime, and engage anyone whom one may have things in common with, and the confidence to do this. Actually, I think I can agree that social skills aren't needed to make friends, but for people who want to smoothly navigate the social world they can be useful imo. (and, of course, for starting cults )

I think, though, that we are talking about two different ideas of 'social skills' here. I'm merely talking about the basic ability to confidently engage strangers, which can be tough for some people, especially when people have guards up that have to be torn down so you can get to the good stuff (sincerity, actual topics of interest, etc.). But yes, these things become useless quickly once basic trust is established.

But of course the typical explanation of social skills is wrong, though I sometimes wonder if the fact that people (wrongly) believe so strongly in their importance actually causes people to need them who otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps this is why I'm so aware of their sometimes-importance, because everyone seems so damned demanding of them, even at their own expense. Their importance should ideally be limited to basic trust building (i.e. I won't kill or rape you). Meh.