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

00:02:24 Similarly, so called Barnum statements, named after famed showman and Hoaxbuster P t.

00:05:56 Avoid Emotional Disconnectors and Word Trash

00:13:47 Elizabeth Stoke is a professor of social interaction at Lowborough University

00:16:13 Researchers at Amsterdam's Vu University

00:16:24 Lead researcher Camille Buickenboom

00:18:41 Jacob Hirsch and Jordan Peterson from the University of Toronto

00:19:12 Social psychologist James W. Pennebaker and his colleagues

00:29:14 Summary

Hear it Here - adbl.co/3OJ4V72

• Use the principles of cold reading to create quick rapport and “read” nonverbal expressions to gain insight into their personalities. Observe, redirect their attention, collaborate with them, and gather information during back-and-forth conversation. Pay close attention to the details and make constantly updated predictions, maintaining warmth while you redirect from incorrect guesses.

• Finally, avoid emotional disconnect caused by “trash words” such as “just,” “honestly,” “amazing,” “slay it,” or “should.”

• Listen to how somebody speaks and uses language to gain insight into their mental models of the world. Notice the focus of their speech, their pronoun use, their positioning of subject and object, and how they explain neutral events. Always be curious about what this expression tells you about the person’s perspective, beliefs, worldview, and focus.

#AvoidEmotionalDisconnectors #Barnum #Beukeboom #BigFive #CamielBeukeboom #ElizabethStokoe #EllenLeanse #EQ #HowWordChoiceRevealsCharacter #JacobHirsh #JamesWPennebaker #JordanPeterson #Kufner #LinguisticInquiry #LoughboroughUniversity #Nonverbal #Openmindedness #Pennebaker #PTBarnum #Shotgunning #RussellNewton #NewtonMG #PatrickKing #PatrickKingConsulting #SocialSkillsCoaching #ThePowerofE.Q.

With anyone you meet. Pay attention to the details even before you're officially having a conversation. Notice everything you can and make educated guesses about the person. Form a tentative theory about their personality, their lifestyle, and their motivation. Then, once you're actually talking, continue to make observations, but focus on how they are responding to you, to the topic, to questions you ask. Hold that provisional theory in the back of your mind and constantly tweak and refine it. Be general, but don't appear to be so initially. Make claims that are so broad in scope that hardly anyone could disagree with them, but which most of us would be tempted to feel apply only to us. Shotgunning is a technique in which you send out an idea and see what hits.

If you say, I think you're probably a very honest kind of nerdy but also dramatic personality, then you might find the other person grabbing just one of these descriptors and running with them conveniently, not noticing that the other two don't really apply. Similarly, so called Barnum statements, named after famed showman and Hoaxbuster P t. Barnum, are very applicable to most humans, but somehow don't feel that way. You can sometimes be overwhelmed by too much change in your environment. There were times in your past when you struggled immensely. Sometimes you feel that other people don't really understand you. A variation on this is the Rainbow statement, which sneakily includes both logical possibilities, so there really is no choice but to agree with it. You're a kind natured person for the most part, but you can be tough when you need to be, or if you're pushed too far. This can be combined with redirection and concealing mistakes.

For example, if you say you're a ride or die kind of person and the response is quite negative, you could quickly say of course you don't take it too far. There are so many truisms and observations that are incredibly general but will perceive to be more targeted. Everyone likes to think that they're smart, good with people, trustworthy, honest, kind, helpful, have good taste, have good intuition, and are loyal to those who are loyal to them. Everyone likes to think that there's a little something about them that is completely remarkable or even a little strange compared to others. Use this all too human feeling to your advantage. If you're a good Cold reader, even being wrong is a data point. For example, if you say to someone, I'm guessing you're a little concerned about money, and they balk at this, you can quickly add which is to say, you take care to stay on top of finances, and so you're never caught short. In essence, you do a complete uturn, but the other person scarcely notices it. Calibrating a Baseline what does the person in front of you do when they're happy?

When they're sad? What does a no signal look like for them? Ask a question you know the answer to and note the response. Ask a question you don't know the answer to and compare the response you get against the baseline you've established. You can do this over the entire course of a relationship you have with someone, or merely over the duration of a single conversation. For example, let's say you're talking to person B from the example above, and you notice that every time you talk about cars, vehicles, or motorcycles, they light up, speak more quickly, smile a little, and start gently interrupting you. You conclude that this is what they look like when genuinely excited by a topic. Later, you invite them out somewhere to do a different activity and ask if they are interested. They say yes and agree, but you see none of the same excitement.

When you overuse just, you risk making what you say seem unimportant. It's as though you are predetermining for the other person how they should react. The Alternative say what you mean instead of I just wanted to ask you quickly say I wanted to ask. Or even better, go straight ahead and ask any questions. Anything else? This is like a bad verbal tick that's carried over from school days. Perhaps when we were taught it was polite to end every presentation or discussion with a little nod to check if there were any follow up queries. It's not the end of the World but the trouble with such a broad question is that it leaves things too open ended and creates an ill defined gap that people usually struggle to fill. Any has no limits.

Instead, use a word like some. For example, at the end of your presentation, say, we have 15 minutes left, so we have time for some questions. It's a small thing that makes a huge difference. Offering a narrower range of options ironically gives people more to work with and maintains a connection. Honest or honestly, this one makes sense. If you have to verbally alert people to the fact that you're being honest with them, the opposite effect is actually achieved. The alternative is just stop saying this and earn a reputation for being trustworthy the usual way amazing or awesome. These words have unfortunately been drained of all possible meaning and will be perceived by the other person as little more than an overly optimistic filler. If they are used instead of fresh, genuine compliments or feedback, they'll come across as insincere and even a little unsophisticated.

Similarly, try to avoid cliches like nice, beautiful or great. Instead, make the effort to find an appropriate and not overused adjective. Even better, find some specific action to praise and connect it measurably to real world benefits. For example, I was so impressed with how you handled that complaint. The way you engaged with that client spared us all a lot of trouble and may have even earned us a loyal customer. Slay killing it savage. I'm dying. Or even aggressive terms like smashing, thrashing it out, et cetera. There are two problems with using words like these.

The first is that they tend to be niche words that may only be appropriate for very specific social and cultural niches. It can be very tricky to decide which niches those are. The second is that this kind of death talk is actually a subtle but persistent way to decrease warmth and connection to the people we're speaking with. True, you may only mean it metaphorically and barely give it any thought, but the effect remains normalizing. Even allegorical aggression, violence or competition can seep in and gradually erode a feeling of harmony, trust and connection. Watch out for hate. I hate to say it, hate to break it to you, etc. Since these somehow convey violence and aggression, but at the same time lack power and volition. I E.

An awful combination. War metaphors are mindlessly, hyperbolic and lazy, and they litter our language, but we can express ourselves perfectly fine without them. Try instead to use more cooperative analogies and metaphors, or simply forego the metaphors entirely should this tiny word carries a lot of baggage. When we say it, we're usually communicating many complicated layers of regret, disempowerment, guilt and more. Using it positions us against some grand external law that we're failing to comply with but nevertheless have to and it immediately drains away. A sense of choice or voluntary purpose should can conceal enormous judgments and shame. It can allow a sense of eternal dissatisfaction to creep in. It can focus your thoughts on moralizing criticism and negativity. Of course, there are some things in life that you or others should do, but be mindful of how you're using the word.

For example, if you need to cut a conversation short, don't say, I should go, but choose something positive instead. It's been so good to talk. See you next week. With this small change, you've moved yourself from passive to proactive, negative to positive. Similarly, if you say to someone, you should have remembered, you're placing blame and admonishment. If you instead say, I'm upset you forgot, you get closer to the truth of the problem and leave the other person the option to make amends. Can we talk or we need to talk? Doesn't reading the above just make you break out into a cold sweat? Consider instead what it feels like to be told can I speak to you?

Much less scary, right? This is because speak to is more specific than talk. It has a direct object, for one, and so it doesn't create the same feeling of disconnect. Elizabeth Stoke is a professor of social interaction at Lowborough University and has discovered that for some scenarios, it's actually more difficult to say no to a request to speak than it is a request to talk. Talking can feel directionless and can make people who may worry they're in trouble feel attacked. But speak carries a lot less of this baggage. This is probably more pronounced when the other person really is in trouble. If this is the case, say, can I speak to you about something? Rather than we need to talk.

How word Choice reveals Character let's go back to basics. What is language for? Well, it's a tool. What kind of tool? A tool that allows us to capture reality in a symbolic representation so we can understand it and share this understanding with other people. Now, we like to think that the way we do this goes one direction only. We choose which words we want to use, depending on our goals, and then communicate accordingly. But actually, the word choices we make unconsciously can reveal so much about us without our knowing it, because it hints at the reality we're trying to communicate. The language we use shows other people how we make internal cognitive maps of the world.

I. E. It gives useful hints into our worldview assumptions, biases, blind spots, and unique ways in which we make meaning. One useful thing to remember is that although language is a shared system of symbols, the way each of us uses those symbols is completely unique to us. Listen to how somebody speaks, and you get a glimpse into the way they think, feel, and understand their world. When you look closely at the choices people make in how they use language. It all seems very obvious, and you wonder why you never saw it before. Some studies suggest that extroverts tend to be louder and speak more and with greater speed. Researchers at Amsterdam's Vu University asked 40 volunteers to look at pictures of different social situations and say out loud what they saw.

Lead researcher Camille Buickenboom found that extroverts opted for language that was abstract, direct, and loose, whereas introverts spoke more concretely about things and used more hedging language I e. Word softeners that reduce the impact of their phrasing. For example, maybe this could possibly be a good idea, if you know what I mean, versus this is a good idea. Extroverts tended to be riskier in their expression, more spontaneous and less specific, whilst introverts look at the differences. Extrovert I'm starved. Let's get lunch. Introvert what do we think? Shall we have something to eat? Perhaps a quick snack?

I don't know. Extrovert but I could cook for us. Introvert shall I maybe make us a sandwich? Extrovert this meal is absolutely sublime. You're a master. Introvert this is very tasty. I especially like the tomatoes. There are other possibly less obvious findings, too. For example, when it comes to the Big Five personality traits, those who are more open to new experiences tend to use words pertaining to the senses more often.

We're so close I can almost taste it. Or I hear you. Open mindedness and agreeableness are also related to more creative verbal expression and more overall prosocial language. Those who show higher neuroticism tend to speak plainly about emotional angst and anxiety, such as I'm utterly devastated, remember death talk. Those who are more conscientious tend to use words pertaining to achievement, work, harmony, and cohesion. We'll work something out. Jacob Hirsch and Jordan Peterson from the University of Toronto found that extroverts tended to make greater use of words referring to relationships, probably because their internal map of reality is predominantly a social one. When many introverts are in a group, they tend to default to problem solving talk, whereas an extrovert heavy group will gravitate toward more pleasure talk and have a wider range of topics. Social psychologist James W.

Pennebaker at the University of Texas at Austin says that people tend to choose certain words according to what they think is most important. If they are deliberately trying to present themselves in a particular way, however, they'll naturally choose words they believe will help them achieve this, muddying the water somewhat. Pennebaker found that people tend to do all this, however, where nouns and verbs are concerned, but exert less control over their articles and pronouns. In other words, listening closely to articles and pronouns and other words he calls functional words may get you closer to the unmanipulated, even unconscious, truth. Pennebaker and his colleagues developed a software program called the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to analyze speech characteristics to look for meaningful patterns. It compared the personalities of those who mentioned more happy versus sad emotions, more I than me or us, more direct or abstract, more focused on causal connections or human relationships, more rational or more emotional, and so on. The data tended to show that higher rates of I words correspond with feelings of insecurity, threat, and defensiveness. According to Pennebaker, words that express counterbalanced thinking except but, however, are associated with higher cognitive complexity and possibly greater intelligence and trustworthiness. Generally speaking, women tend to use more pronouns and refer more frequently to other people.

Men are more likely to use articles, prepositions, and ten dollar words. The older people are, the less they tend to refer to themselves, the more positive overall their speech and the greater their tendency toward future tense verbs, not past tense ones. When they're being honest, people are more likely to use first person pronouns. That means I. Pennebaker found that famous published poets tended to use I more when they were suicidal or depressed, suggesting an unhealthy self absorption or even isolation following a shared trauma. People tended to use we more than I, possibly to underscore a feeling of social cohesion and bonding. As you can guess, context matters in a big way. A conversational narcissist may use as many first person pronouns as a depressed and anxious person, but for very different reasons. And the effects can be very different too.

Linguistic psychologists have long known that a person healing from trauma or illness may write about their experiences in very different ways as they heal and recover. By tracking their pronoun use overall focus and choice of language over time, they are actually tracking the changing way these people think of themselves and the world around them. We need to constantly remember that language is a tool and ask ourselves how the person in front of us is using that tool and why. Now, all this might seem like a lot to remember. How could you possibly analyze someone's speech or writing when there are so many variables? Interestingly, many of those researching this field tend to agree that human beings are already quite good at appraising someone's personality from their verbal expression. Yep, they can even tell what you're like over text or email. To ramp up this superpower, however, it's worth being more conscious about not just what people say, but how they say it, including what they're not saying. Let's look at an example.

Let's say you've planned a fun three day hike in the mountains with a group of friends. On the first night, wild animals eat all your supplies and chew up your gear, putting the whole group in a tricky situation. You're all standing around the next morning, staring at the mess, wondering what to do. Here are some of the things people say I can't believe this. I just can't. I knew I should have put it up in a tree or something. I've got a few protein bars on me. With careful rationing, it'll take just six or 8 hours to hike back to base camp. We'll be okay.

Guys, this is hilarious. Listen up. I want you to know if we have to nominate someone to eat to survive, I'm choosing you. Maybe you should not make jokes at a time like this. Okay, let's take a closer look. Speaker A uses four first person pronouns. Their interpretation is clear. They're framing this mini disaster as a thing that's happening mainly to them. What's more, there's two uses of cant and a good helping of regret and self admonishment.

You could safely conclude that this person is a little neurotic, probably quite anxious and feeling very threatened and overwhelmed. This is likely why they're unable to even think of other people in the situation. Think about the subtle differences in the following I knew we should have put it up in a tree or something. I knew someone should have put it up in a tree or something. I knew you all should have put it up in the tree or something. Can you see how just small changes in pronoun use tell you a story about how this person sees their own responsibility and agency in the world and how they understand their place in the group and within humanity as a whole? Person B says I got a few protein bars on me. With careful rationing, it'll take just six or 8 hours to hike back to base camp. The focus is immediately on a solution, but notice that this person uses pronouns sparingly.

It is not stated. If we ration carefully, we can get to base camp in six or 8 hours. Instead, the effect is one of cool detachment and pragmatism. Can you see how different it would have been if they had said, I've got a few protein bars on me. I'll share them with you and lead us back to base camp? Person. C says we'll be okay, guys. This is a classic conscientious, agreeable and optimistic way to signal your belief in the group as an entity. This person is not struggling as much as Person A and is clearly showing what kind of world they inhabit.

A shared collective one person D's joke is an interesting response. Why did they react this way? What does it mean that they speak directly to Person B and use such a colorful, arresting image to break the tension? Chances are high this is an extremely extroverted person who's focused on enjoying the moment. The drama and humor suggest a robust, even dominant personality who likes risk taking and is fairly confident in how things will turn out. That or they're terrified in trying to conceal it. Again, context will tell. As you're listening to people speak constantly, ask yourself the following questions what is this person focusing on? What are they avoiding?

What does this tell you about their values and what they consider important? How do they describe neutral events? Do they take credit for them, blame others, or position things as just happening? What does this tell you about their confidence in their feelings of agency and culpability? How are they positioning the subject and object in their senses? For example, do they say, I got a speeding fine or they caught me speeding? How does their choice of language fit in with the rest of their nonverbal communication? Does it emphasize or contradict? What does this tell you about them overall?

How are people using swear words, specialist jargon, and specific cultural markers and accents? For example, if someone subtly switches their accent while talking to someone new, ask why and what they might be communicating about their beliefs and worldview. What do they repeatedly say? People can signal their priorities by what they tend to say over and over again. Why, for example, might someone keep saying but then again, that's just my humble opinion. Taking together with several other data points, you might conclude that this person is in fact a conversational narcissist, but likes to conceal it by repeatedly assuring everyone they are actually humble. Summary Be mindful of your meta language and make sure that your verbal and nonverbal signals are aligned. Nonverbal communication can repeat, substitute, complement, or accent our verbal communication. If it doesn't, we risk sending mixed signals or lowering trust.

Pay attention to messages sent using facial expressions, body posture, gestures, eye contact, touch, use of space, and voice characteristics to build mindful awareness of your nonverbal communication. Try to eliminate in the moment stress by breathing, pausing and connecting with your five senses, and cultivate emotional awareness, including the ability to tolerate and accept emotions as they are. When reading body language, think holistically, dynamically, relatively, and in context. Don't rely on single data points, but look for clusters of behavior inconsistencies with context and a shift from baseline. Use the principles of cold reading to create quick rapport and read nonverbal expressions to gain insight into their personalities. Observe, redirect their attention, collaborate with them, and gather information during back and forth conversation. Pay close attention to the details and make constantly updated predictions, maintaining warmth while you redirect from incorrect guesses. Finally, avoid emotional disconnect caused by trash words such as just honestly amazing, slay it or should listen to how somebody speaks and uses language to gain insight into their mental models of the world. Notice the focus of their speech, their pronoun use, their positioning of subject and object, and how they explain neutral events.

Always be curious about what this expression tells you about the person's perspective, beliefs, worldview and focus. This has been social skills coaching. I'm Russell, founder of Newton Media Group, producer of social skills coaching along with Patrick King. You can find us@newtonmg.com. If you have any feedback on today's episode, please take a moment and email us at podcast@newtonmg.com. We'd love to hear from you. We hope you'll join us again next Tuesday for another episode from a book by Patrick King that will help you to become more likable, more charismatic, and more productive. In the meantime, here are some random tidbits of information that will help you strike up conversations and maybe apply some today's tips for building instant rapport. Today's birthday list is quite eclectic.