Easily listen to Social Skills Coaching in your podcast app of choice at https://bit.ly/social-skills-home

00:02:55 Are You a Conversational Narcissist?

00:11:01 The Power of the Support Response

00:17:03 ALBRECHT’S RULE OF THREE FOR CONVERSATIONS

Hear it Here - https://adbl.co/3N9lsjI

• The biggest threat to connecting well with others is conversational narcissism—i.e., the tendency of centering ourselves, talking too much, steering the topic, interrupting, invalidating others, bragging, manipulating, or acting superior to others. Everyone has the potential to be narcissistic in conversation at times.

• A shift response is an attempt to bring the focus and attention of a conversation back to yourself. A support response maintains that focus and attention on the other person. A great way to reduce conversational narcissism is to use fewer shift responses and more support responses. When used well, support responses lead to better, more fulfilling conversations for everyone.

• Dr. Karl Albrecht says that all conversations can be broken down into three fundamental components: declaratives, questions, and conditionals. His rule of three is to never make three declarative statements in a row without a question or conditional statement.

• Declarations can be presented as statements of fact whether they are or aren’t, and can shut down conversations or act as shift responses. Conditionals are modified, weaker forms of declarations that acknowledge their own subjectivity.

#Keywords #Make #RussellNewton #NewtonMG #PatrickKing #PatrickKingConsulting #SocialSkillsCoaching #MakeFriendsEasily #WhenEgoGetsInTheWayPatrickKing

Hello listeners, it's March 27th, 2024, and you're tuned into Social Skills Coaching,

where you become more likeable, more charismatic, and more productive.

Today's episode tackles a sneaky roadblock to strong connections.

Your own egos will be diving into the book Make Friends Easily by Patrick King to explore

the concept of conversational narcissism and how it impacts our interactions.

We'll learn how to identify these ego-driven tendencies and swap them for more supportive

conversation styles.

We'll also discover Dr. Carl Albrecht's Rule of Three, a powerful technique to keep

conversations flowing and engaging, so if you're ready to ditch the monologue and spark

deeper connections, then let's get started.

For more social skills, tips, and resources, head over to the website at bidley's slash

pkconsulting.

Buckle up, and let's dive in.

By now, it should be clear that the art of socializing, being charismatic, and making

friends is an emotional art, not a rational or intellectual one.

Charisma is nothing more than the quality that enables us to connect with and inspire

others on an emotional level, without being coercive or threatening.

That, in a nutshell, is what a friend is.

To be charming, likeable, and trustworthy, you need to create a certain feeling in people.

And that means that the focus is always on THEM, not US.

We can think of the narcissism ratio as the proportions of these two different points

of focus.

The higher the proportion of attention, consideration, and focus on the other person, the more charismatic

and likeable we seem.

The more we focus on ourselves, the more narcissistic we appear to others, and the less likely we

are to form deep, trusting connections with them.

If in a conversation you refer to yourself (“I”, “me,” or “my”) ten times

as often as you refer to the other person (“you”), for example, then that’s a

pretty skewed ratio.

But it’s not as straightforward as that.

There are many more subtle ways of dominating the conversation, steering things toward yourself,

or being unresponsive to the other person that make you ultimately a conversational

narcissist.

Who is the biggest threat to our own charm and charisma?

That’s easy: We are!

Are You a Conversational Narcissist?

Here are some of the signs.

You take more airtime.

Good conversations are not about you or the other person saying something interesting—rather

they are about the connection between you both.

However, if you’re simply talking too much, there’s a strong chance you’re not leaving

enough space for others.

“Holding court” means you don’t pay as much attention to other people’s needs,

perceptions, or expressions as much as you do your own.

Naturally, you’ll come across a little self-absorbed.

You always direct the topic.

Are you constantly the one who decides not only what the conversation topic is, but how

that conversation unfolds?

Another way to ask this question is, do you often find yourself annoyed that other people

are slightly changing the conversation topic or direction, since it’s not what you want

to talk about?

It may happen that you notice the other person do this, then simply carry on saying what

you were saying before they spoke.

You interrupt.

First of all, interrupting is not always a major offense—sometimes people talk all

at once simply because they’re excited and want to emphasize and support what the person

is saying (more on this later).

But regularly interrupting is probably one of the most destructive conversational habits

you can have.

It’s essentially sending the message “I’m more important than you; I deserve to speak

more than you do.”

Interrupting is often felt by others to be extremely invalidating and undermining.

It tells us that not only is a person not interested in what we have to say, but they

are so uncurious about it that they are willing to cut us off.

You invalidate people.

If deep down you think that your perspective is the only one that really matters, you’re

going to hold other people’s perspectives in contempt.

You’re going to think that they’re unreasonable, uninformed, silly, unimportant, weird, secondary,

stupid, bad, mistaken, or just plain wrong.

Validating someone is simply the act of acknowledging them and letting them know that they have

value, and in their own way, they make sense.

A conversational narcissist, however, sees themselves as the source of value, so if someone

says something that doesn’t directly refer back to them, they cannot acknowledge that

person or see their value.

They simply dismiss them.

Without empathy, understanding, and insight, rapport crumbles . . . or fails to develop

at all.

You brag and boast.

Naturally, a conversation should never be thought of as a platform to show how great

you are.

Most people know that they shouldn’t go on too much about how amazing they are . . . but

there are other, covert ways of bragging.

The notorious “humble brag” may be even worse than outright egotism (“Oh my gosh,

I can never find clothes that fit both my tiny waist and my enormous bust.

It’s a real problem.”).

Other secret ways of blowing your own trumpet include name-dropping or constant one-upping

(and that includes making sure you’re always the one who has it the worst!).

You have an attitude of superiority.

A belief in your own superiority is the hardest thing to conceal.

Any time you marginalize, judge, belittle, minimize, make fun of, or dismiss someone,

it’s obviously a bad sign.

But many people convey a sense of their own superiority in other ways: They dish out unsolicited

advice (often beginning with “As an XYZ . . .”), they lecture and preach to others

whether they want it or not, and they attempt to qualify others or position themselves as

the main arbiters of value in that exchange.

As an example, consider a man telling a woman out of the blue, “You don’t need to wear

so much makeup, by the way.

In fact, as a man I can tell you that most men think a natural woman is more attractive.”

He thinks he is “helping” . . . but this comes from the belief that his own opinion

on makeup is somehow absolute truth, and that anyone would be grateful to receive it as

a kind of education!

Imagine two friends who are peers in all ways, but one of them consistently treats the other

as though he is a younger brother, trying to correct him, instruct him, or tease his

failures while adopting the position of someone wiser and more accomplished.

A related example is the person who thinks they know it all and considers it their sacred

duty to enlighten and inform everyone around them.

Pontificating at length as though one’s personal opinions are actually profound philosophical

edicts is not just annoying, it’s boring.

If someone senses that you think of yourself as genuinely more important than they are,

you can kiss any rapport goodbye!

You manipulate.

It’s hard to put your finger on exactly what manipulation is, but we all know it when

we feel it.

If you treat another human being like an object and merely as a means to an end, you are manipulating

them.

Again, this can be blatant, but it can also be incredibly subtle.

If you approach any conversation with the intention of positioning someone primarily

in a way to serve your own ends, you’re on shaky ground.

This includes flattering someone so they give you what you want, being deceptive, trying

to deliberately shift focus by blaming others or twisting facts, strategically playing the

victim, throwing a tantrum to get what you want, intimidating people to get them to back

off . . . All of this is treating human connection as

a mere tool and not as something with innate value in its own right.

It’s abusing other people and abusing your connection to them.

A narcissist doesn’t see people as they are but rather as extensions of themselves,

who have value to the degree they can be exploited.

Naturally, there are gray areas, but if you often find yourself thinking “What’s in

this for me?”

then you might have a problem.

Okay, now time for the hard bit: All of us are conversational narcissists . . . at least

some of the time.

If you are feeling insecure, nervous, or uncomfortable, you may start to turn inward and focus a little

too much on yourself, forgetting the other person and the whole point of conversing with

them in the first place (to connect with them!).

Even though all of the above signs look pretty serious, the fact is that most of us have

a conversational narcissism ratio that’s not as good as it could be.

Sure, we’re not comic book villains, but even little slips here and there may be seriously

undermining your ability to be the charming, likeable person you could be.

Why not do better?

The Power of the Support Response You already have one powerful tool in your

itinerary for centering the other person: questions.

Let’s look at another fantastic tool called the support response.

First, consider the following conversation:

A: “So that’s why we’ve both decided we’re going to do a run every day.

I think I’ve found my favorite type of exercise!”

B: “That’s really cool.

Running’s great, but I think I prefer walking—easier on the knees!”

A: “Oh, totally.

I get that.

I think all the adrenaline makes you not really notice the little aches and pains.

Yesterday was our record—three miles!”

B: “Running made me pretty tired.

I ran for years, but I had to give it up.

These days I do more strength stuff.

You know, it’s much better for you.”

A: . . .

In this conversation, B is employing what is called a shift response—when A says something,

B responds in a way that brings the topic back around to themselves.

It shifts it back to B. In this short exchange, A makes two definite bids for emotional recognition

from B, clearly wanting to talk about how exciting their new running hobby is and looking

for a little validation that three miles is a pretty good run.

But B doesn’t respond, choosing instead to steer things back to themselves.

Notice how both of these shift responses act like a brake on the conversation.

Can you think of anything for A to say to keep the conversation going?

After a while, you can imagine A either losing interest or being polite and talking about

B’s topic for a while . . . then losing interest.

It’s as though conversation is a game of tennis, and people hit the ball back and forth,

sharing it equally.

In this metaphor, the ball symbolizes the attention and focus of a conversation—i.e.,

who the conversation is temporarily about.

A shift response is like never letting the other person get the ball.

And if you do that, you’re no longer really playing tennis!

A great way to improve your narcissism ratio is to use fewer shift responses and instead

use a support response.

Here’s how that might look:

A: “So that’s why we’ve both decided we’re going to do a run every day.

I think I’ve found my favorite type of exercise!”

B: “Well, congrats.

I think I’m practically allergic to cardio, but hats off to those who love it.

How long do you run for?”

A: “We’ve been keeping our runs to around two miles, but yesterday we broke our own

record and did three!”

B: “Woah, look at you go!

That’s amazing.”

A: “Aw, thanks.

I’m pretty proud of myself.”

B: “Are you going to be one of those crazy people who run a marathon every weekend?”

A: “Ha!

Who knows, maybe.

You going to join me?”

B: “Well, I’ll do a marathon if you join me for a CrossFit class.

Deal?”

A: “Oh my God, you do CrossFit?”

A support response is what it sounds like—it supports the other person as they share and

express themselves.

It doesn’t work to pull attention from them, but sustains it and keeps it there.

In this conversation, B asks questions but also supports A simply by asking questions

and saying “That’s amazing” and “Woah, look at you go!”

Notice something else interesting about the above exchange: By generously offering plenty

of support responses, B does not lose out in the conversation in any way.

In fact, the moment that A gets the validation they were looking for, they, too, give a support

response.

Now the conversational tennis begins.

B can then take their turn and talk about themselves for a little while without having

to fight for it.

This is an important point—support responses never mean that you take a back seat, are

passive, or don’t get to say your bit.

When used well, support responses lead to better, more fulfilling conversations for

everyone.

Too many shift responses, however, tend to strangle conversations and leave both parties

feeling like they’re arguing over a scarce resource.

It’s okay to talk about yourself, share an experience, or put your opinion forward.

Just keep it balanced and offer plenty of support responses, too.

Short expressions that show you’re listening and reflect emotional content:

“Wow!”

“Oh my God.”

“Uh huh.”

Supportive phrases and assertions:

“That’s pretty interesting.”

“You’ve clearly given this some thought.”

“That makes sense.”

Supportive questions:

“Then what happened?”

“So wait, how did you meet in the first place?”

“Would you say that’s your favorite?”

You could try a kind of mixed response, too:

“Haha, that’s hilarious (expression to show you’re listening)!

I would die from shock if that happened to me (almost a shift response).

What did you do next (a supportive question)?”

By mixing things up this way, the conversation doesn’t get too lopsided, the other person

feels heard and supported, and you give them plenty of opportunity to ask you a question

in turn.

ALBRECHT’S RULE OF THREE FOR CONVERSATIONS If you consistently employ more support responses

than you do shift responses, you will automatically avoid becoming a conversational narcissist.

The great thing about support responses is how well you can combine them with the other

techniques already discussed—for example, asking questions, using witty banter, self-disclosing,

or maintaining curiosity.

Let’s look at one more way to ensure that you’re getting the balance right: Albrecht’s

rule of three.

In Psychology Today, coach, lecturer, and author Dr. Karl Albrecht explains how all

conversations can be broken down into three fundamental components: declaratives, questions,

and conditionals.

We’re already familiar with questions, but what about the other two?

Declarations This refers to any statement you make.

These are usually given as statements of fact—whether they are or are not.

“The sky is blue” is a declaration, but so is “This kind of weather is so annoying.”

Often, people will make declarative statements that are opinions wearing the disguise of

fact.

“It’s not really possible to make a living as an artist these days.”

The main characteristic about declarations, however, is the fact that they tend to invite

a particular response from others in conversation.

If someone simply states something, there isn’t much room for other people’s opinions,

or for any give and take.

The only real responses open to the listener is to do nothing, or else agree or disagree

with what’s been stated.

As you can imagine, declaratives sometimes have the effect of shift responses, merely

for the fact that they maintain focus on the speaker’s perceptive and opinion.

Have you ever been in conversation with an annoying know-it-all?

They were probably making too many declarations and not asking enough questions.

Nobody wants to be lectured to when talking—they want the exchange to be a lively, dynamic

give-and-take.

People who rely too heavily on declarations in their communication end up being perceived

as stubborn, self-focused, and a little boring.

The conversation can become a soap box for their views rather than a shared, collaborative

activity.

At its worst, a conversation filled with too many declarations can inspire arguments!

Conditionals (or Qualifiers) These can be thought of as modified, weaker

forms of declarations.

“This weather is annoying” is a plain declarative.

“You know, in my opinion, this weather can be a little much at times” is very different.

A conditional statement is softer and expresses itself while acknowledging that it is in fact

an opinion and not the absolute truth.

Conditionals can begin with: “If you ask me . . .”

“The way I see it . . .” “I can’t be sure, but I think . . .”

“XYZ is the case, wouldn’t you agree?”

“Maybe XYZ is the case, I don’t know.”

“It seems like . . .” “I’m happy to be proven wrong on this,

but I do believe that . . .” The trick here is that you are essentially

conveying the same information you would with a declarative statement—but you are presenting

it differently.

It’s more polite, more flexible, and more accommodating.

It sends a strong signal to the other person that your priority in the conversation is

not to “win” an argument or be right, but to maintain connection and rapport.

Questions As we’ve seen, questions can come in all

shapes and sizes.

They can be open-ended or closed, they can chunk up or down, they can contain hidden

assumptions and judgments, or they can be supportive and encouraging.

The power of a question, though, comes from the fact that it respects the other person’s

role as co-creator and puts connection and interaction as the goal, with the factual

content of conversation being less important.

Most people could drastically improve their conversational skills just by asking twice

as many questions, but that said, you can have too much of a good thing.

Ask too many questions in a row or ask too many of the same kind of question and you

can obviously come across as a nosy interrogator—or even as though you are avoiding participating

in the conversation yourself.

Albrecht's rule of three states that during a conversation, you should avoid saying three

consecutive declarative statements without including a question or qualifier.

Combined with the technique of support responses, we can see questions as supportive, declarations

as an attempt to shift, and conditionals as a mix between the two.

By monitoring the balance of declaratives, questions, and conditionals in our speech,

we can engage the other person more effectively.

Albrecht suggests that after making a few declarative statements, we should redirect

the conversation by asking a question, allowing the other person to contribute and take ownership.

Similarly, when responding to a question, balance out strong opinions with conditional

or qualified responses.

Note that the goal is not to completely center the other person at the expense of your own

expression.

It’s also not necessary to censor yourself or pretend that you don’t have strong opinions

if you do.

The goal is simply to balance both your needs and the other persons’.

• Too many declaratives: A tug-of-war conversation, a monologue, or an argument.

Not enough curiosity or empathy.

• Too many questions: An interrogation or lopsided disclosure.

• Too many conditionals: Not a disaster, but can feel inauthentic or overly polite.

• Just the right balance between all three: magic!

Let’s have a look at what a balanced conversation might sound like, and see if you can spot

the declarations, the questions, and the conditionals.

Note also where there may be a shift response or a support response.

A: “We were really nervous about getting a dog at first, but I’m so glad we listened

to everyone’s advice and got an older dog rather than a puppy.”

B: “Yeah, I can totally see why people say you should do that.

How old was your dog when you got him?”

A: “He was already ten years old!”

B: “Oh, wow.”

A: “I know, he was a bit of an old man, to be honest.

But it was great because we didn’t have to do too much training.

He was really mellow.”

B: “Dogs can live for ages, though.

He could go another ten years—I had a dog that lived to twenty-one.”

A: “Really?

That’s crazy.

I bet it was a small breed, huh?”

B: “Yup.

A chihuahua.

She was invincible!”

A: “Aw, cute.

Did she go all gray in the muzzle?”

B: “She did.

Blind, too, but we loved her.

I really loved having a dog, but I don’t know if I’d do it again.

It’s just too hard when they die, you know . . .”

A: “That is something I’m worried about.

But I don’t try to think about it too much.

He’s happy, so I guess that’s what matters.

Dogs can be tough.

Do you have kids?”

Is this a balanced conversation?

Let’s investigate.

Speaker A managed to include: • 3 declarations

• 2 support responses • 3 questions (phrased conditionally, and

always after a declarative) Speaker B managed to include:

• 1 conditional response • 1 question

• 1 support response • 3 declarations

The conversation is pretty balanced!

You might have noticed that when Speaker A was making their declarations, Speaker B supported

them with questions, conditionals, and support responses, and then when Speaker B took their

turn to make declarations, Speaker A reverted to asking more questions and offering support.

You might have also noticed that both speakers gave somewhat mixed responses, which ensures

an overall evenness:

A: “We were really nervous about getting a dog at first, but I’m so glad we listened

to everyone’s advice and got an older dog rather than a puppy.”

(Declaration, almost a conditional).

B: “Yeah, I can totally see why people say you should do that.

How old was your dog when you got him?”

(Declaration/conditional, followed by a question—overall acts as a support response).

A: “He was already ten years old!”

(Declaration).

B: “Oh, wow.”

(Support response).

A: “I know, he was a bit of an old man, to be honest.

But it was great because we didn’t have to do too much training.

He was really mellow.”

(All declarations).

B: “Dogs can live for ages, though.

He could go another ten years—I had a dog that lived to twenty-one.”

(All declarations—also a notable shift response).

A: “Really?

That’s crazy.

I bet it was a small breed, huh?”

(Support response, followed by a question.

Speaker A acknowledges the shift response and supports it).

B: “Yup.

A chihuahua.

She was invincible!”

(Declaration.)

A: “Aw, cute.

Did she go all gray in the muzzle?”

(Support response, followed by a question).

B: “She did.

Blind, too, but we loved her.

I really loved having a dog, but I don’t know if I’d do it again.

It’s just too hard when they die, you know . . .” (All declarations, the last one quite

strong, approaching a self-disclosure).

A: “That is something I’m worried about.

But I don’t try to think about it too much.

He’s happy, so I guess that’s what matters.

Dogs can be tough.

Do you have kids?”

(Declaration, a matching self-disclosure that acknowledges B’s emotional content, and

a question that both changes the topic but also potentially deepens it).

The above conversation flows pretty well because both A and B are taking turns.

When B says “Dogs can live for ages, though.

He could go another ten years—I had a dog that lived to twenty-one,” they are using

this shift response to turn attention from A to themselves.

This isn’t a problem; having spoken a bit about themselves, A is happy for this to happen

and immediately follows this shift in the conversation with both a support response

and a thoughtful question: “Really?

That’s crazy.

I bet it was a small breed, huh?”

Finally, you probably noticed the tiny self-disclosure near the end, which was introduced by B and

sustained by A. If this conversation had been left to run for another twenty minutes, chances

are that A and B would find themselves building more rapport and gradually creating more connection.

Now, reading the above breakdown, you might be wondering if it’s really necessary to

analyze conversations to this degree—rest assured, the answer is no!

This is merely to illustrate Albrecht’s rule of three and to show how supports and

shifts feature in even a lighthearted and low-stakes conversation like this one.

Take a look at an alternative path the very same conversation could have taken:

A: “We were really nervous about getting a dog at first, but I’m so glad we listened

to everyone’s advice and got an older dog rather than a puppy.”

B: “Yeah, I can totally see why people say you should do that.

How old was your dog when you got him?”

A: “He was already ten years old!”

B: “Oh, wow.”

A: “I know, he was a bit of an old man, to be honest.

But it was great because we didn’t have to do too much training.

He was really mellow.”

B: “Dogs can live for ages, though.

He could go another ten years—I had a dog that lived to twenty-one.”

A: “Really?

That’s crazy.

Well, like I said, our boy is ten . . . although he may actually be younger since he was a

rescue and nobody is all that sure.”

B: “Uh huh.”

A: “They look at the teeth, you see.

They make an estimate, but it’s not always accurate.

The thing is that if the dog wasn’t really cared for in the past, their teeth can be

in pretty bad condition.

So they look older than they are.”

B: “Makes sense.”

A: “I mean, nobody knows.

We decided when his birthday is and we just keep counting the years from that day!

Hahaha!

That’s dog people for you.”

B: “Oh, I get that.

We used to do the same for our old chihuahua.”

A: “Yeah?

Toby’s birthday was last month, actually, so we got him a little piece of steak.

It was adorable . . .” Let’s take a magnifying glass to this conversation

and see what happened.

Speaker A managed to include: • A whopping 7 declaration statements, all

in a row • 2 mini support responses—that were immediately

followed by declarations Speaker B managed to include:

• 1 conditional • 1 question

• 3 support statements • 2 declarations

This is not a balanced conversation, and it’s likely quite tiresome for B. Fast

forward it twenty minutes and either B will be bored to tears or the whole thing will

have ended.

It all goes wrong at this exact moment: A: “I know, he was a bit of an old man,

to be honest.

But it was great because we didn’t have to do too much training.

He was really mellow.”

(This is a perfectly innocent declaration).

B: “Dogs can live for ages, though.

He could go another ten years—I had a dog that lived to twenty-one.”

(Here, B is trying to shift the conversation to themselves.

But note, however, that they are still maintaining and extending the overall topic).

A: “Really?

That’s crazy.

Well, like I said, our boy is ten . . . although he may actually be younger since he was a

rescue and nobody is all that sure.”

(A responds with some mild support, but immediately launches into another declaration.

The effect is to briefly acknowledge B’s bid to have the floor, but then refuse to

give it).

B: “Uh huh.”

(What else could B say?

The conversation goes downhill from here, and A then starts to lecture about dog dentistry

and so on . . .). Admittedly, this is a very short and very

simple conversation, but it does show just how quickly rapport can be lost if the balance

of the three components is thrown off for too long.

Again, there is nothing wrong with holding the limelight for a while, or sharing your

opinion.

The trouble comes in when you do not recognize that others wish to take a turn, or you actively

steer the conversation away from them and back to yourself.

Done once or twice, this can be forgiven, but if you do it consistently, you can expect

that others will very quickly decide that you’re a bad listener and that you have

no intention of talking with them, only to them.

In almost every conversation, there will be a time when a speaker will make a shift response

and signal that they want to speak, contribute something, or steer the conversation.

Pay attention to it!

If you ignore it, the conversation could lose momentum and start to feel disconnected.

Of course, you might be the one giving a shift response and making a bid to talk about yourself

. . . and realizing that the other person is not budging.

We’ll consider this situation in the next section.

Alright listeners, that wraps up our exploration of conversational narcissism and how to cultivate

more supportive dialogue.

Remember, strong relationships are built on mutual interest and genuine connection.

By incorporating these tips and practicing active listening, you'll be well on your

way to having more fulfilling conversations and building stronger bonds with those around

you.

For a quick recap, head over to the show notes where we've outlined Dr. Carl Albrecht's

Rule of Three and some key takeaways from Make Friends Easily.

Don't forget to like and subscribe to Social Skills Coaching wherever you listen, and if

you're looking for even more resources to boost your social skills, visit their author's

website at bit.ly-slash-pk-consulting.

Thanks for joining us today, and we'll see you next Wednesday.