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

00:01:48 Karen Huang and colleagues

00:05:35 Chunking Up and Down

00:18:15 When to Chunk Up

00:19:13 When to Chunk Down

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

• Research suggests that talking about yourself makes you a little less likeable, while asking questions makes you a little more likeable. Open-ended and follow-up questions especially showed the greatest relationship to likability. People like those they believe are genuinely hearing them, seeing them, and reacting to them.

• Questions that chunk up or down allow you to vary the degree of detail at which you present or request information. Both approaches have their uses, but it’s about balance, variety, and aligning with the other person. Become curious about where a current conversation is and whether it might need more chunking up or chunking down.

#Chartrand #Chunking #ChunkingUp #GeorgeAMiller #KarenHuang #Lacan #Lacanian #RussellNewton #NewtonMG #PatrickKing #PatrickKingConsulting #SocialSkillsCoaching #MakeFriendsEasily #Question-Asking

Now ask yourself, which one do you would like more? Research by a team of Harvard psychological scientists suggests that the most likeable will be Person B because they ask questions. The likeability, they claim, increases even more if the person asks follow-up questions that show they listened to and cared about the answers you gave to the first questions. Karen Huang and colleagues concluded from their research that talking about yourself is always going to make you a little less likeable, while asking questions makes you a little more likeable. Even if you are talking about yourself in an inspiring, interesting, useful, or amusing way ... you’re still talking about yourself. Remember Bill Clinton and how he made people feel like he was looking right at them, and that they were the only two people in the room? Being a president almost certainly makes you a fascinating personality ... but even in that case people would still rather have you notice, acknowledge, and engage with them. Huang’s research found that people who asked open-ended questions showed the greatest relationship to likability. And yet, in new and unfamiliar situations, people tend to get nervous and do the opposite.

So, if you are a more introverted person, relax: You can still be ultra-likable, just as long as you allow yourself to get out of your head and engage with the person in front of you! So, a rule of thumb that will never let you down: when in doubt, ask an open-ended question. If you can, ask a meaningful follow-up question. Of course, asking too many questions can backfire, especially if they are closed, repetitive, unimaginative, and intrusive. Generally, though, most people are asking too few questions, not too many. Chunking Up and Down Okay, so asking questions is important, and we should all be asking more of them. Open-ended follow-up questions are best. But let’s explore a few more considerations for getting questions right. The concept of “chunking” was introduced by Harvard psychologist George A.

He found that the way you present information greatly influences the way people receive it, and this has far-reaching consequences for communication. Today, the concept of chunking is used as a way to vary the degree of detail at which we present or absorb information. Learning how to chunk can improve the way you negotiate with others, explain yourself, or ask for what you want. It can help you “meet people where they are” and resolve conflict, as well as create a quicker sense of rapport. Yet most people are completely unaware of the option to vary the way they chunk information according to the needs of the conversation—instead they let the conversation run where it will, for better or worse. We can chunk up or chunk down. Broadly: Chunking up means to “zoom out” and go up a level of abstraction. Chunking down means to “zoom in” and explore a smaller, more concrete detail or specific instance. To really understand the role these two functions play, let’s look at some examples where chunking is not being properly used—and how it undermines connection and communication.

Example 1 A: “You were late again this morning." B: “Really? I don’t think I was. Maybe like one or two minutes, but I don’t think that counts as late." A: “It was more like ten minutes, actually." B: “No, that’s not what I remember at all. I remember walking in and it was like, 2:05 or something." A: “Okay, so it was more than one or two minutes, like I said. And you were late yesterday as well."

B: “I didn’t even come in yesterday." A: “Sorry, I meant the day before yesterday." B: “The day before yesterday I was on time. Or does being on time also count as late in your book?" A: “Well, why not? Everyone else was here and ready to start at 2 p.m." B: “So I wasn’t actually late. I was there at 2 p.m. You’re now saying that you want me to be there before that?

You’re asking me to be early, not to be on time. I was on time." A: “But that’s not what I’m saying ... ” And on and on, you get the picture! Before we comment on this exchange, let’s look at another one. Example 2 A: “So, what do you think you’re really looking for in a partner?" B: “Oh, you know, the same thing everyone else is, I guess! I really value honesty. At this point in my life, I’m looking for more authenticity, more realness." A: “Oh, cool.

I can totally relate to that. You seem like a pretty straightforward person to talk to, in fact. I like that." B: “Yeah, I just feel like society has just become so fake, you know? Everyone’s wearing masks all the time." A: “Oh, I agree. I hope ... well, I hope I’m getting to see the real you? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours, haha!" B: “Yeah, it’s definitely about vulnerability, isn’t it?

I read this article the other day about how the internet has rewired the way people connect with one another, and how everyone has become kind of passive and demanding. Like, we’re all used to this kind of browsing mode and have no patience for each other anymore." A: “Yeah ... but I’m liking talking to you right now ... ” B: “Do you know about Lacan? He was a psychoanalyst who had some cool theories about how humans form their identities, and the role that desire plays and blah, blah, blah ... ” A: (Screams internally.) Hopefully, you can see that both these interactions could be better. Let’s look at each in turn and see why they went wrong and how chunking could have improved things. In example 1, the trouble is that both people are getting “stuck in the weeds”—they are allowing themselves to be bogged down in irrelevant detail. They’re quibbling about whether it was one minute or five, or what the definition of “late” is and of exactly when this event happened or didn’t happen. As a result, no progress is made, no understanding is found, and these two are likely to go on arguing pretty much forever.

They are both repeatedly chunking down—drilling down to details and hashing over them while losing sight of the bigger, more abstract organizing principles that could pull these details together. Speaker A never zooms out enough to say what is really behind every little gripe of theirs: “People in the team are feeling like you don’t take them or their work seriously." Likewise, Speaker B is defending themselves on each little accusation while never seeing the bigger pattern all these little data points form: “I know I’m tardy sometimes, but I don’t agree with your assessment that I don’t care. I do care. I’m hurt that you think that a few minutes here and there mean I don’t care, considering all the hard work I do put in." Chunking up could have saved this conversation and brought A and B to a real resolution. Instead, they stay trapped on one level, arguing. So, does that mean chunking down is always a bad thing, and chunking up is what makes you a good communicator? Nope!

Example 2 is the proof. In that conversation, the problem is that Speaker A and Speaker B are pulling in opposite directions: A is attempting to chunk down, B is continually responding by chunking up instead. In this example, A is trying to have a flirty, personal, and specific conversation. But B is abstracting and depersonalizing this at every turn, talking vaguely about “people” and “society” rather than “you and me." B launches off into interesting but sterile musings on vulnerability, Lacanian theory and mask-wearing—all the while not noticing A’s attempts to remain in that specific conversation, in the here and now. A keeps talking about B directly; B responds by talking about ideas and concepts, in a removed and detached way. A is trying to make a connection, B is talking about connection in an abstract sense. It’s the opposite problem from Example 1—the conversation is all very lofty and high-minded, but it lacks detail and specificity. What both these examples show us, then, is that it’s not chunking up or down that is important.

Rather, it’s about balance, variety, and matching the other person. When you are asking questions, keep this in mind. Some questions will chunk up, some will chunk down (a few will keep you where you are). As a general rule, try not to ask more than three of one type of question in a row. If you ask three chunking up questions (or make three chunking up comments), then zoom in again and ask a chunking down question. Mix things up. Listen to hear where the other person is and try not to pitch your comments or questions too far from where theirs are in terms of specificity. Here's how to chunk up: Look at some of the details being discussed, and ask what they could be an example of. Example: If you like football and they like tennis, notice that they’re both examples of sports.

Ask about the deeper connections between seemingly disparate ideas. Example: What’s common to both these sports? What “bigger picture” is that a part of? Ask about overarching patterns, themes, or underlying purposes that connect things. Example: They’re British and love football; you’re French and love tennis. What does this say about how culture influences the sport you like? Ask about the meaning or purpose of things. Example: Why do they like tennis? Why do you like football?

What’s the point? Here’s how to chunk down: Look at the overall principle and become curious about specific instances of that. Example: They love cooking, so you ask them: What type of cooking do they like? What ingredients? What specific stores? What recipes? Ask about the facts—what, when, where, who (note, this does not include the question why—that’s a chunking up question). Example: Who taught them to cook so well? Was this when they were younger?

How old? Where did this happen? Ask about differences and distinguishing features. Example: They like spicy food, but do they prefer Mexican spicy or Indian spicy? What’s the difference? Are there actually many different types of Mexican cuisine? Basically, chunking down means to look at the “pixels” of the conversation, whereas chunking up is about looking at the overall picture those pixels make. Once you know all this, it will become obvious that the most effective communication happens when chunking is varied and appropriate. You want to continually zoom in and out, getting both a detailed view of the conversational landscape, as well as being able to zoom out and check on the bigger picture now and then.

Again, remember that neither is better than the other; instead, they are both very different tools. Let’s look at how and when to use each tool. When to Chunk Up •When you want to depersonalize—let’s say in a professional context, or in a confusing or emotional argument where a little psychological distance could allow everyone to “step back." •When you want to summarize what has been done or what will be done. Chunking up is reminding yourself of your overall strategy and intention of the conversation. It’s a way to check in and see if you’re on course. •When you want to solve problems, but solve them by thinking outside the box or working at a higher level of abstraction. •When you are trying to resolve conflict and want to move away from the details of the problem and start thinking of a way forward (like the people in the first conversation). •When you are making a theory or trying to learn.

•When you are considering meaning and purpose. When to Chunk Down •When you want to create more closeness, intimacy, and rapport. Specificity equals intimacy. It’s here and now. •When you want to keep things light and inoffensive—this is the domain of small talk. Asking about details maintains conversational connection without much emotional risk. •When you want to demonstrate active listening and show that you’re paying close attention. Asking questions can often lead to someone sharing more and more detail, and this can be an opportunity for validation and empathy. •When you want to solve a problem, but on a very practical, specific, and pragmatic basis.

•When you’re fact-finding and trying to gather data (you then use chunking up questions to analyze and synthesize that data). This is the rule about “listen to understand, not to respond." In the real world, of course, things can’t be so easily divided into “chunking up” or “chunking down,” but you may be surprised at what you notice when you use this framework in your own conversations. In time you can become more skilled at not just asking more questions but asking the right kind of questions. Both chunking up and chunking down can make you more likeable, more charismatic, more empathetic, and more interesting. If a conversation is stalling or feeling too superficial, it’s time to ask a chunking down question and get more personal. If you notice that one or both of you are getting lost in pointless detail, zoom out, take a breath, and see if you can inject life into it by making a comment about a broader pattern or theme. Then, you can drill down again later in some new, fresh topic. Put it into practice: Time to find a conversation guinea pig again.

In fact, this exercise can be done on anyone you encounter today. Simply become mindful of the level of abstraction/specificity they are functioning at. Notice where you are in relation to them. Do you notice certain people who have a consistent tendency to be one way or another? Do you tend to default to more chunking up or chunking down questions and comments? If there is someone who you repeatedly feel awkward around, ask if part of the mismatch could be in the way you organize information. Thanks for joining us today, and remember, building meaningful friendships starts with small steps. You can get a copy of Make Friends Easily by Patrick King at Amazon, Audible, iTunes. You can learn more about the author at bit.ly slash pkconsulting.

Thanks for joining us, and we'll see you again next Tuesday.