I think it was unfortunate that this piece did not begin by conveying that the original study's authors specifically state their goal "was to develop a temporary feeling of closeness, not an actual ongoing relationship".
Additionally, like many social psychology studies the nuances of the design and methodology are extremely valuable, yet this piece deems them as "dry" and mostly "devoid of enthusiasm". Anyone who has contributed to the design of substantial social psychology studies can tell you just how carefully each of these details is considered in design, implementation, and analysis. The original article [0] is full of detail, context, and discussion, and is definitely worth a read.
[0] https://psychodramaaustralia.edu.au/sites/default/files/fall...
"This pattern is consistent with Erikson's idea that low ego-identity individuals fear cross-sex intimacy in which they might lose their identity and thus get close only if they feel they can protect themselves from too much intimacy. For the same-sex pairings in the 45-min classroom version, the opposite interaction was found -- consistent with Erikson's idea that same-sex friendships for those who have not developed ego identity serve as identity supports, but for those who have developed an identity, they serve as sources of undesired conformity that threatens one's individuated identity."
The post does say this in the second paragraph:
Strangers... [report] a substantial amount of closeness in their relationship after a guided 45-minute conversation. But it's a far stretch to say that such an accomplishment truly creates reliably long-lasting relationships, regardless of the immense immediate effect.
Except that they began the piece by conveying exactly that:
>But it's a far stretch to say that such an accomplishment truly creates reliably long-lasting relationships, regardless of the immense immediate effect.
If you don't know anything about anybody... like the homeless man rummaging through my recycling bin right now looking for bottles... It's easy to look down on them or just write them off.
But if a neighbour told me anything about that same man... perhaps that he lost his job last year and thus just tries to supplement his income by picking up bottles in his spare time... I would feel immense sorrow even just looking at that man (who is still a stranger to me). Enough so that I would probably offer him some extra cash and a bite to eat if I had it.
I witnessed a man break into my neighbor's house the other day... which enraged me at first (what if it were my house?!) but when I saw the man who did it... I immediately felt sorry for him.
This was a desperate, dirty, homeless man with a smile on his face as the police dragged him away. He was probably just looking for some shelter to sleep that night.
The house that he "broke into" did admittedly look abandoned. And I found myself trying to justify the reasons that he might have tried to break into the house, rather than hating him silently.
All because I got a look at him.
You don't know who someone is until you see them go through poverty. Also, you don't know who you are yourself until you experience that terrible feeling of scarcity.
For me, greed is the worst human attribute. When I see rich people being greedy, I find it hard to imagine how much worse they would be as human beings if they were poor.
The inverse is also true: you don't know who someone is until a) they get rich and/or powerful (and change), b) you go to poverty (and e.g. they prove to be only "fair weather friends").
And I would just more harshly someone who reveals themselves to do bad things or be a bad friend when they get rich or when you get poor, than someone doing bad stuff when THEY get poor.
Because desperation can force one to do things they don't want or like (like borrow money and not give it back or even steal), but the others don't have that excuse.
They probably are poor, at least from their viewpoint, because humans like to compare themselves against their peers, not against the average person they have nothing to do with.
So rich people compare themselves against other rich people in their social circle and then decide they want to have a little more. It's not greed from their viewpoint, it's "not falling behind".
You are talking about the motivation behind a story, which might give you more compassion for the motives an individual held.
That's quite different from saying that putting you in a room with said homeless man and sharing life stories for 45 minutes is going to build a significant connection between you two.
He is a "natural", in the sense that he can form close bonds with people incredibly quickly. At first I thought he was using some sort of secret strategy, but after a while I noticed that he was simply sharing personal details about himself (which the article refers to as "self-disclosure") without being prompted, which encourages, and in fact compels, the other side to reciprocate.
Here is an example conference call conversation from two weeks ago, in fact, in which we were chatting with a potential client to schedule a meeting. Bob is my boss:
--
Bob: Okay. Let's have an in-person meeting next week. What day works best for you?
Client: How about Thursday at 2?
Bob: Sounds great. You know, I'm glad you didn't say Wednesday because I have to be with my two little girls that day, and I definitely could not miss that. They mean the world to me.
Client: Oh yeah, I understand. In fact I can relate... I have a daughter myself!
--
And then when we actually met in person this past Thursday, the topic of their daughters was a natural conversation point.
In contrast, I tend to be fairly reserved when it comes to sharing personal info. I like to stay on topic and dislike what I perceive as derails. The above conversation for me would have gone like this:
--
Me: Okay. Let's have an in-person meeting next week. What day works best for you?
Client: How about Thursday?
Me: Sounds great. See you on Thursday at 2 PM.
--
Similar, but also very different.
I've learned that it mostly works. In some cases though people see you as someone who doesn't always say something relevant.
What also works (more specifically) is: you share a certain secret about you, and if that person has a similar secret you get to hear it as well. At one night, I was with a traveler and we were both in a country we both didn't live in. We self-disclosed quite a bit and then agreed to tell each other every juicy detail of our lives without ever seeing each other again. We poured our hearts out to each other and we told each other all kinds of secrets that we told no one else. I learned a lot about life that night :)
Self-disclosure is awesome. You give people the opportunity to relate back. And people, in general, are nice.
Could it be that shared adversity is the key to bonding? Personal revealings would then follow gradually as a natural consequence. In this view the best way to make friends would be to go to high-school together, get stuck in an airport for 2 days, watch a horror movie, share a rock-climbing accident, etc. Mostly circumstances one doesn't have much control over, admittedly!
From the client's perspective, if he reflects on that conversation at all, the question naturally arises: "What if I had said Wednesday?" Would Bob have skipped spending time with his girls, meaning that his actual statement was a lie? Would Bob have demurred and suggested another day, because the implicit offer of any day next week was false? What other things will Bob try to slide past the client? The chance for this sales process to be collaborative and mutually beneficial seems to have been weakened, given that the client has evidence that Bob will say whatever he has to say to make the sale...
If it's not obvious, I am not in sales. :/
Oversharing with strangers (bragging about loving your children?!) is a classic manipulative tactic.
"""Draco giggled. "Yeah, right. Anyway... to answer what you asked..." Draco took a deep breath, and his face turned serious. "Father once missed a Wizengamot vote for me. I was on a broom and I fell off and broke a lot of ribs. It really hurt. I'd never hurt that much before and I thought I was going to die. So Father missed this really important vote, because he was there by my bed at St. Mungo's, holding my hands and promising me that I was going to be okay."
Harry glanced away uncomfortably, then, with an effort, forced himself to look back at Draco. "Why are you telling me that? It seems sort of... private..."
Draco gave Harry a serious look. "One of my tutors once said that people form close friendships by knowing private things about each other, and the reason most people don't make close friends is because they're too embarrassed to share anything really important about themselves." Draco turned his palms out invitingly. "Your turn?""""
Any study that old that hasn't been replicated with rigorous scientific standards is about as valuable as a magazine horoscope.
As one more random data point: I am a chatty extravert. Sometimes people imagine they are close to me when they are not.
Ah yes, my greatest fear interacting with people confirmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults#Anxious.E...
The method is hardly fast though - it requires two people to set aside a good chunk of time in a quiet setting to fully experience the gradual escalation of self-disclosure. When trying out this method in real life, what about the fact that you chose that one person to try this with? The reasons behind that choice would contribute much a successful result of this method but still left unexplained.
A common misconception. The root of the phrase "fast friends" is actually steadfast friends. Meaning friends with a strong bond and sense of duty towards each other.
I too had only heard of this study in terms of the romantic partner thing... I guess it makes sense to apply to any friendship.
Edit: The above is all lies! Well, except the meaning. The phoney etymology is lies. See below.
People trying to explain the origin of the phrase “fast friends” point to the word “steadfast” as an example of where this sense of fast persists. You might also notice the same meaning in our words fasten, colorfast, etc.
You start liberally. When an experience becomes dumb, you abort. TL; DR you meet fun people and make some friends.
For those who aren't, or are and somehow haven't yet had this pointed out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
Source: two weeks into quitting.
I started drinking coffee so I could make that type of small talk with a common interest that's mostly harmless and had broader appeal. It's crazy that if you weren't a smoker or coffee drinker you missed out on a lot of interesting rumors and tiny bits of institutional knowledge.
Even in consulting I make sure to hit up the (coffee) watering hole at the client just to see people I don't see often. Instead of just getting water I find the time it takes to do things like mix creamer and sugar give me time to strike up a decent conversation with someone.
Stay strong!
Perhaps this statement is true, but is the end goal for both parties the same?
For some reason, I find myself befriending mainly females (I am male). Yes, I have a high ego. However, I can never tell if the other person is interested in a friendship or something more. I always want to put them in the friend zone, but I have awkward situations in the recent past where these friends have either made subtle and not-so subtle advances. I am not interested in anything more than friendship. I do not want to lead anyone on. So yes, perhaps that pairing works well, but is friendship the goal?
In addition, males tend to bond during "experiences", so what I have been seeking as of late is more male friendships. Other males are more inclined to go on multi-day backpacking adventures. According to this study, males with low-ego are likely to become friends, but I seek high ego/high energy friends.
Instead, go for high energy but less ego. At the start deflate your own for their benefit, let your guard down; essentially "putting yourself out". Come down to their level for the first few outings.
Once you have their trust you can back off (slowly) so you don't seem fake or patronizing; if they say something or notice a change in their behavior be honest with them: explain how it's been difficult to make friends with shared interests. Hopefully they will trust you enough to look past any perceived slight and continue the friendship.
You may still need to be conscious of your ego or energy level if there's a big group disparity, you don't want to be singled out because they perceive you as difficult and them have the rest bond over that.
or, the sociopath way, which is even faster: identify the group difficult subject and join the pileup on it without adding new opinions but just reflecting and circulating those of others in the group.
I'm a guy and high ego myself, and all my close friends are guys. I also joined a frat in college. Most of the time, if I"m trying to "befriend" a woman it's for romantic reasons.
A lot of that has changed for me recently. Going to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for a year now and doing more yoga has really helped me to figure out a lot of traumatic issues from the past, especially with racism during childhood.
It's really reduced my fear of socializing with people. I'm now somewhere in between extrovert and introvert and I've noticed that self-disclosure happens a lot more and interactions have improved with strangers. Even small talk happens now and then. I've always hated small talk.
I don't like the extrovert/introvert/attachment type labelling though. Reading on them or discussing them with others has some kind of effect of boxing you in to self-limiting thought patterns. It can be a good starting point to figure things out, but I implore people to not think you're stuck in your ways.
introversion and extroversion are more descriptors of how one handles mental energy than ratings of social competence and degrees of shyness.
for example, i can be very social and outgoing at parties, but they completely exhaust me, and i don't like them. i am introverted because i prefer to direct my mental energy in a more inward, reflective way, and any process that impedes that (e.g., a party) can be very exhausting. it has little to do with how well i can handle myself socially.
“I have to be alone very often. I'd be quite happy if I spent from Saturday night until Monday morning alone in my apartment. That's how I refuel."
I was in a class a year or so ago and everyone had to align themselves to a side... introvert or extrovert.
I tend to zero out on those things because I have worked pretty hard at being social. But when the instructor said "extroverts are energized by social interaction", "introverts are drained" it was very clear to me where I stood. The bigger the crowd, the harder it is (for me).
I like people. I like going out and doing things. Until I don't. Then I need my space. It really is hard to grasp that people have entirely different ranges of physical and emotional responses to social interaction.
I'll tell you what though... the more people I have in my life regularly the happier on the whole that I am. That's why I've worked at being social. It's not always easy. Sometimes it's a drain. But it's important.
Introversion is my dominant attitude, but I can pair a strong extraverted thinking function (my #2) with that to overcome problems that may require an extensive, as opposed to intensive, approach. So Jung might call me an I, but I'm well-advised not to imbalance myself by resting all my weight on it. Also, extraverted thinking has relatively little association with sociality even though it is extraverted, but it can sure help me research ways to develop healthy relationships. HN is also in general a highly attractive source of information for those who naturally value extraverted thinking, or "facts concerning externalities". It makes sense that we'd eventually work around to blind spots like relationships here. :-)
I know that stuff in particular matters big time to me, even just for friends. My closest friends tend to see the world very similarly to me than people I am much less close with. In fact, more often than not I end up pruning out the people that think drastically differently than I do. Most of the time this just happens naturally because I tend to be more wary about what I say and talk about once I know someone is extremely different than me. My spidey sense puts me on high alert and I basically enter a super-PC, "what every word that comes out of your mouth" mode. Occasionally, I deliberately reduce interactions and they go from being a close friend to being just a casual friend or acquaintance.
For instance, I fundamentally think I'm pretty great when compared to any "average person." And even most "high-functioning" people. However, I realize that talent is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things without tons of social proof you're always perceived as a nobody, so I still work my ass off and try not to let my own aptitude go to my head.
Is that high-ego or low-ego?
Are you feeling big and developed enough to talk to someone of the opposite sex? While ideally it would make no difference, it's certainly the truth that many of us are happier to engage socially with those of the same sex than those who aren't.
https://psychodramaaustralia.edu.au/sites/default/files/fall...
which only caught my eye because of the "A. Aron" author. I'm almost certain this is the husband of Elaine Aron, who launched the identification, qualifier, and description of the "Highly Sensitive Person" (HSP).
Arthur's paper is dated 1997, while Elaine's first book on the HSP type was published in 1996. Which I find to be an interesting correlation in time.
More recently, Elaine has (in my limited knowledge) been focusing on the concept of "ranking and [or, versus] linking".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/attending-the-undervalu...
The OP topic here reminds me somewhat of her perspective on linking.
So I went there, and read the 8 bullet points under "Is this you?" and then I thought, well yeah, that applies to everyone!
Here's one: "Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short amount of time?"
That's a "Barnum Statement" [1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#.22Barnum_statem...
Can confirm. Over the years I minimised the amount of same sex friends in my life dramatically.
<bookmarks page>
How is this different than toning down the ego a notch when trying to make platonic friends, while trying to be confident when looking to make romantic partners?
Obviously it's a kind of a spectrum, but at the same time, there definitely also are low ego and high ego individuals, whose ego, even if their fluctuates, it remains high or low relative to the average person.
If one person has zero interest in the other person past as a means to a very specific end (sex), and is wholly untruthful about that, then it veers away from scientific study of friendship and closeness.
Taking it a step further: "find a person, learn about their personal life, exploit their weaknesses, escalate to sleeping with them" is definitely red-pill territory, and while it might be unfair to judge the original phrase after being modified, the only difference is the knowledge and intentions of one party within an unchanged process.
"Learning about each other's personal lives" has a strong assumption that the stories themselves are truthful and without pretense past a socially-acceptable normal level as human beings.
Sales, romantic attraction, and friendship-building ultimately use the same skill set. Humans don't change huge amounts in different contexts, and the best tactics are often cross-applicable.
Psychology is the study of the psychology of psychology undergraduates.
"Those with dismissive-avoidant personalities didn't get as close
"The dismissive-avoidant is one of the attachment types in the study of social attachment in adults. It pertains to people who feel more comfortable without close social relationships, highly value their independence, they suppress and hide their feelings, and deal with rejection by distancing themselves from its source. The other personality types in adult attachments include secure, and two other insecure types: anxious-preoccupied and fearful-avoidant. These three personality types all reported on a higher (and similar) level of closeness achieved than the dismissive-avoidants."
Well, that lets me out, then.
I've always wondered whether attachment style is not so much a function of the individual, but a function of the interaction between two individuals, where each party plays a role. I can think of many people that I am "secure" with, and others who I am "avoidant" with.
I would love to see a qualifier like "How to make a friend fast in America?"
You appear to intimate that if you were younger and unattached sex would pay a role, but that at odds with your 2nd sentence. Perhaps you could expand on your reasoning?
Does it say freud? I assume it's meant to say friend...
Does it say watters? I'm assuming it's trying to say matters?
It took me about a minute or two to deduce these meanings though...
It sounds abstract but you can immediately understand the idea simply by describing human behavior in literal terms and focus on the feeling of unease you experience from doing so.
Besides, if people manage to build strong connections with the scientific method, is that really so bad?
Practically, as soon as someone starts "hacking" social norms---most often with either sales or scams in mind---then the norms adjust. That's why city folk are more standoffish than country folk, why your inbox is full and mostly unread, and why women at bars are closed-off.
I mean, OK, we're robots. But we're pretty good robots.
Is that why people that use a process to try and explain what people will do are nearly always wrong? Economics, politics, etc. People do respond to basic triggers of biology, but we have very little understanding of these trigger and where they originate from.
But the author of this post goes even further, and uses both spellings in the same sentence!
In extravert-introvert pairs, extroverts report on greater closeness than introverts
That can't be right...
Google n-grams isn't all that sympathetic to my account, in showing a long history for 'extrovert' and suggests 'extravert' is actively dying out.
But the history may not go back far enough: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-dif...
'Folklore has it that when Carl Jung was once asked which was the correct spelling—ExtrAvert or ExtrOvert—Jung's secretary wrote back something like, "Dr. Jung says it's ExtrAverted, because ExtrOverted is just bad latin."'
[...]
'According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "The original spelling 'Extravert' is now rare in general use but is found in technical use in psychology." That's correct. If you look at scientific journal articles, virtually every paper uses the spelling ExtrAvert.'
In my accent, at least, I pronounce the phrase 'extr_vert-introvert' with an open A, contrasting to the pursed O of introvert.
But if I say the word 'extr_verts', by itself, I pronounce it with an O, identical to 'introvert'.
It's difficult because for me, at least, in my accent, both are degrading to an unstressed vowel anyway, so it's a fine gradation.
Historically the term was 'extravert' in psych literature. I feel like more technical usage probably still leans that way.
