Relationship skills and relational intelligence, even in the workplace, has always been considered soft skills. And soft skills used to be seen as feminine skills. And feminine skills are often highly regarded in principle and disregarded in reality.
I think that I wish more people knew that criticism was also a kind of an act of sustained attention, right? Which is like kind of radical in this moment where we're being asked to divide our attention and to scroll, right, endlessly, right? the the idea of spending time with a painting or a book or a song and really considering what elements of it you favor, what elements of it you might not agree with, what elements are rubbing you the wrong way — it's such a gift and I think that's like actually an act of love.
I think we're more custodians of the culture, right? We're here to facilitate conversation about the things that we enjoy. We're here to make connections between um cultural objects or cultural productions. Um we're not here to tell you what to do. We're here to sort of like push you to think, which seems to be an unpopular thing these days.
Awkward people have social skill deficits. They have a hard time knowing what's expected in a social situation and also have a hard time executing the right social skill. They have trouble communicating, which can be understanding what someone's trying to tell them, but also communicating what they intend to other people. And the third thing is obsessive interests. And I actually kind of love this. People who are awkward really love what they love, but sometimes to their detriment.
You can go the opposite way, the the Mark Zuckerberg way and rip it and just be like, "Yeah, I'm having fun with AI." Which is honestly like it feels like people are like, "Yeah, I kind of want that energy a little bit. Just give me the white pill."
Awkward people have social skill deficits. They have a hard time knowing what's expected in the social situation and also have a hard time executing the right social skill. They have trouble communicating, which can be understanding what someone's trying to tell them, but also communicating what they intend to other people. And the third thing is obsessive interests. And I actually kind of love this. People who are awkward really love what they love, but sometimes to their detriment.
Awkward people, they actually think about the world and take in the world differently than people who aren't awkward. And it really falls into three characteristics. So awkward people have social skill deficits. They have a hard time knowing what's expected in a social situation and also have a hard time executing the right social skill.
I was thinking about how you can get the same piece of information and depending on who is giving it to you, you might respond really differently. I think about if I'm getting advice from a from somebody who doesn't maybe share my values or doesn't know me well or is in my family and feels like they can, you know, they therefore have a right to to tell me uh how to live versus um you know, somebody who I have chosen as a friend and who might be different from me, but who I have like really really deep respect for um that I might take in that information really differently.
people like Willie Nelson, people like Dolly Parton, these really great storytellers, when they're singing, you know, if you see Dolly Parton on TV singing, and you press mute, it just looks like she's talking to you, because she is. She's telling the story.
Awkward people, they actually think about the world and take in the world differently than people who aren't awkward. And it really falls into three characteristics. So awkward people have social skill deficits. They have a hard time knowing what's expected in the social situation and also have a hard time executing the right social skill.
When researchers studied what actually drives charitable giving, they found that people are far more moved by the story of a single identified victim than by statistics about thousands of suffering people. In fact, adding statistical information to an emotional story can actually reduce donations — the numbers seem to crowd out the feelings that motivate generosity.
Most people, when they think about making a difference, think about the size of the action. But research suggests that what matters more is whether the action is targeted — whether it's aimed at a specific person or group of people. When we try to help everyone, we often end up helping no one.
AI really wants every sentence to be the most important sentence. It's like there's no like thinking ahead to to the um to like to the end of the essay or something. It's just trying to make every sentence sound impressive, which makes it very tiring to read.
Most people think that communication problems arise because we don't say what we mean. But research suggests the opposite is often true: we say exactly what we mean, but we fail to consider how our words will land on the other person. We're so focused on our own intentions that we forget the listener is constructing their own interpretation of what we say.
We assume that if we are thinking something, other people can see it too. The problem is that our thoughts and feelings are invisible to others. What is obvious to us is often completely hidden to everyone else.
We assume we know what someone is trying to tell us even before they've finished talking. But that assumption leads us to fill in the blanks with our own expectations rather than actually listening — and the result is that we often respond to the conversation we imagined rather than the one we actually had.
Most people think that arguments and misunderstandings happen because people disagree about facts or values. But Yeomans has found that often, the problem is simpler and more fixable: people don't feel heard. They feel dismissed, or they feel like the other person isn't really engaging with what they've said.
We often assume that the people we're talking to share our understanding of a conversation's purpose — but they frequently don't. One person thinks they're having a casual chat, while the other thinks they're negotiating. One person wants emotional support, while the other launches into problem-solving mode.
We assume that other people understand us better than they actually do, and other people assume that they understand us better than they actually do. This leads to a kind of mutual overconfidence in our ability to communicate — and it means that the gap between what we intend to say and what others hear is often much larger than we realize.
We assume that what's in our head is plain to see to everyone around us. But the thoughts and feelings we have are invisible to others. And when we forget this, and communicate as if our inner world is on full display, conversations go wrong.
We assume that the people we're talking to understand us, that they grasp what we mean. But research shows that we are often wrong about this. We think we're communicating clearly, but the other person is operating on a completely different set of assumptions.
Most people think of conversations as cooperative endeavors where two people are working together to exchange information. But Deborah Tannen has spent her career documenting how conversations are also performances — rituals laden with hidden rules about status, connection, and identity. When those hidden rules collide, we don't just miscommunicate; we wound each other without ever knowing why.
I have no way to tell what any of the words that I speak, that are feathered things on the breath of air, how will they be received and how will my chaos be dispersed to the winds. I have no way to control any of that.
Bullying is not conflict. It's not a debate, it's not criticism, it's not humor that you're too sensitive to take well. It is a deliberately targeted, serial, escalating pattern of attacks carried out by multiple people, and it's intended to destroy a person's reputation and their ability to contribute.
We often assume that the people we're talking with see the world the way we do — and when they say something that seems strange or hostile, we interpret it through that lens. But much of the time, the other person is operating with an entirely different set of assumptions, and neither party realizes they're not actually having the same conversation.
We often think that the source of conflict in our relationships is a difference of opinions or values. But much of the time, the problem is something more fundamental: we think we're communicating clearly, when we're actually not communicating at all.
There is no substitute for a tough piece of feedback from someone who cares about us. And when we can make it safe enough for the people in our lives to tell us those hard things, it not only benefits us, it can spark transformation in our workplaces and in our families.
And the feedback is that when I'm not at my best, I come across as arrogant, condescending, self-righteous and a know-it-all -- which is a really nice combination and a great way to make friends, if you're interested.
We expect that people will judge us harshly for saying something awkward, but actually, people often appreciate the effort. The discomfort we feel about saying the wrong thing is much greater than the discomfort the other person feels when we say nothing at all.
I think, you know, I would call the 2010s maybe the doom and gloom era of climate change communication. And the thing is that it got people's attention. So I think the focus on kind of scaring people and talking about how, you know, awful everything was made people sit up and listen for a period of time. But the problem is doom and gloom messaging doesn't necessarily motivate action.
We often assume that people can read our minds — that our feelings, our appreciation, our love, are somehow transmitted through the ether without our having to say anything. But research consistently shows that we dramatically overestimate how much others know about what we're thinking and feeling.
I think people get divorced and their relationships fall apart the same way that I think Thomas Wolf said, uh, people go bankrupt very slowly and then all at once. So, I think it's a lot of little small pieces of disconnection that eventually just catastrophically lead to the failure.
Nothing that happens after the question is your responsibility. Your responsibility is have the curiosity, the integrity, the thoughtfulness, and the humility to ask what's on your mind and not bite your tongue because well, it might be uncomfortable. Well, what are they going to say? Let that be their problem.
Something about this moment feels more existential. Like the very core of who we are as human beings is under threat, challenging the way we think, communicate, connect.
We found that people dramatically underestimate how much others will appreciate their expressions of gratitude. They think the other person will feel awkward or that the note will seem, you know, a little bit over the top. But in study after study, we found that recipients felt much more positive about receiving these kinds of messages than senders anticipated.
I would call the 2010s maybe the doom and gloom era of climate change communication. And the thing is that it got people's attention. So I think the focus on kind of scaring people and talking about how, you know, awful everything was made people sit up and listen for a period of time. But the problem is doom and gloom messaging doesn't necessarily motivate action.
We often assume that the people around us — our friends, family members, and coworkers — are perfectly aware of how much we appreciate them. But research suggests that people dramatically underestimate the impact of expressing gratitude. The person receiving the message feels far better than the sender ever expected.
We often assume that other people can read our minds — that our feelings, intentions, and inner states are transparent to those around us. But research suggests we dramatically overestimate how much others know about what we're thinking and feeling, while simultaneously underestimating how much our own silence shapes the way others perceive us.
We think that other people can see what we're feeling on our faces — and often, that's true. But we may overestimate this. We think we're an open book when in fact we may be a closed one. Our feelings, no matter how intense, are often invisible to others.
Negative emotions get exhausting over time. So there was a really incredible global mega study looking at 60,000 participants from 63 different countries and testing 11 interventions that were all designed to promote action on climate change. Now, one of these messages was kind of a traditional doom and gloom message about how terrible climate change is and how bad everything's going to be. And at first glance, it looks like that message worked really well. It was one of the messages that people were most likely to share on social media. However, this doom and gloom message actually undermined people's willingness to take a more effortful form of action.
We assume that people know how we feel about them. But the research suggests that our feelings are far more opaque to others than we realize. We think we're an open book, but to everyone else, the pages are often blank.
We assume that other people know how we feel about them. But study after study finds that we are much worse at conveying our feelings than we think. The gap between what we feel and what others actually perceive is often enormous.
We often assume that the people who love us know how we feel about them. But research suggests that our positive feelings for others are systematically underestimated — that the people in our lives have little idea how much we appreciate, admire, and care for them.
I think I would call the 2010s maybe the doom and gloom era of climate change communication. And the thing is that it got people's attention. So I think the focus on kind of scaring people and talking about how awful everything was made people sit up and listen for a period of time. But the problem is doom and gloom messaging doesn't necessarily motivate action.
1mo ago
Underscored — save the words that stop you in your tracks.
