The Science of Social Intelligence:

45 Methods to Captivate People,

Make a Powerful Impression,

and Subconsciously Trigger Social Status and Value [Second ... (The Psychology of Social Dynamics Book 7)

By Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.

Chapter 1.

The Social Animal.

We all have this point in our lives when major hormonal changes get in the way

of almost every aspect of our existence.

I’m talking about our adolescence,

that critical juncture to adulthood.

And yes,

I’m also talking about all that angst and newly discovered emotions seeping

into our interactions.

Years ago (longer than I would like to admit),

I was an emotionally anguished teenager.

Par for the course,

really.

One day,

the fragile bundle of emotion that was me came to a peak when I encountered a

cashier who I thought had been rude to me for weeks.

Our normal conversations went something like,

“I’ll have the salmon bagel."

“Is that all?"

“Yes,

thank you."

“Okay,

that will be three dollars."

In just that sliver of interaction,

can you feel the cashier’s contempt for me?

Of course not.

I had made it up in my mind when I decided to be offended at anyone and

everything.

But what’s important is that I believed the story I had created for myself.

In doing so,

I started to treat this poor cashier like she was the scum of the Earth to get

even with her,

and she actually started becoming impolite to me.

Keep in mind she was a cashier,

so she was literally paid to be nice to people,

and she had started to speak rudely to me.

I must have been a terribly annoying teenager.

I had created a story in my mind,

acted on it,

and brought it to reality in the worst of ways.

I didn’t realize until far later that this was the Pygmalion Effect at work,

which states that,

however you treat someone,

that’s the person they will become to you.

If you treat someone as if they are kind and magnanimous,

you will probably encourage that side of them.

You’ll be generous and caring to them,

and they will respond in kind.

However,

if you treat someone as if they are swine,

you won’t give them a chance to shine and you will bring out their worst

sides—and that’s exactly how I behaved with this poor cashier.

That was my first peek into how small things can dramatically make you more

likable and charismatic,

or the complete opposite.

It was a whole new understanding of social intelligence and what it takes to

succeed with people.

It’s not necessarily just knowing the best small-talk topics or being able to

make powerful eye contact,

as magazines and online articles would have you believe.

It’s so much more than intentional courteous gestures and a pleasant demeanor.

How we deal with social situations and people,

in general,

has something to do with how our brains operate—all those background

processes that lie at the foundations of our thought patterns,

cognitive tendencies,

and emotions.

Like it or not,

we make the vast majority of our decisions underneath the surface of our

conscious thinking.

This is terrifying if you don’t understand what your decisions are truly

being based on.

As the saying goes,

knowledge is power.

Gaining fuller understanding of how our minds work goes a long way in our

search for self-improvement and mindfulness.

This is where the book comes in to help.

The goal here is to impart understanding of what people are really looking for

when they judge and evaluate each other.

Some of it will be nearly common sense,

while other aspects will be completely counterintuitive.

Along the way,

you’ll learn more about the Pygmalion Effect,

with dozens of other studies from biological science,

social psychology,

and even behavioral economics.

You are about to embark on a journey into the depths of your mind and discover

what gives you the feeling of chemistry with one person,

and the worst feeling of all with another - complete apathy and instant

disregard.

Again,

this can be terrifying—but hopefully,

by the end of this book,

you’ll see more opportunity than chances to stumble socially.

We are ruled by our brains,

and our social lives and relationships depend on decoding them!

Underneath,

we are all wired with the same hardware.

Our software is a little different,

but our core drives and motivations are just about standardized.

Human beings are,

both from a biological and evolutionary standpoint,

social animals.

Regardless of where an individual may fall on the spectrum of intro- and

extroversion,

some amount of social interaction is simply an integral part of life.

It’s something we want and also something we need.

Social intelligence and understanding the relationships that surround us are

key to getting what we want in life.

Science and research have shown us a way to predictably deal with that which is

theoretically the most unpredictable - people.

Over two millennia ago,

the famous philosopher Aristotle was quoted as saying,

“Society is something that precedes the individual.

Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not

to need to,

and therefore does not partake of society,

is either a beast or a god."

The ability of our species to communicate with each other more effectively than

any other species on Earth is the predominant factor that propelled us to the

top of the food chain.

And as civilization advances,

social skills have remained a very important part of what makes people

successful as individuals.

If you don’t understand the science of social intelligence,

you won’t only be left behind;

you’ll be unhappy and have difficulty achieving your goals.

The Importance Of Being Social.

Why is it that we so readily understand the importance of developing our

physical bodies,

of enhancing our intellectual capacity and of learning skills—but so seldom

spare a thought for sociability?

Being social is as essentially human as any of our other core needs,

and yet we take social intelligence for granted,

assuming it will sort itself out.

While we all understand that it might be nice to be liked by plenty of people,

have strong friendships and a healthy social life,

not many of us take steps to actually do anything about it.

There’s good reason to believe that social interaction and the skills it

requires are a fundamental need for our species.

It’s simple - understanding the art of bonding with other human beings is not

optional but essential to who we are,

and our thriving in this world.

In this chapter we’ll look at some key research showing how our ancestors

developed this vital ability to connect with one another,

and how the need has stayed with us ever since.

The benefits of mastering social skills are obvious - those with stronger

social connections are healthier and more robust,

have better mental health and undoubtedly benefit from the resources available

on that social network.

A 2011 study published by Schultz et. al. in the well-known journal Nature

explained how our primitive ancestors who were better at socializing had a

fitness and survival advantage over their less-sociable peers,

particularly as human beings learnt and evolved different foraging styles.

Biologists and anthropologists have tried for years to understand exactly how

qualities like individual and social behaviors evolve with time.

In this study,

the researchers suggested that as human beings moved from foraging alone to

foraging in more adaptive social groups,

and from foraging at night to foraging in the day (a more dangerous time),

they developed sophisticated communication,

empathy,

cooperation and social rules.

In other words,

the social reality of human beings evolved a long time ago along with all our

other traits.

We are hardwired this way today precisely because these behaviors were

advantageous for our ancestors;

those who were less sociable did not have this advantage and consequently died

out millions of years ago.

In fact,

many believe that our very brains evolved to process the extra data that came

with living in a group one had to get along with in order to survive.

Our language,

our faculty for imagination,

our love for storytelling,

our social and familial structures—all of these helped our ancestors survive,

and still help us survive today.

It’s amazing to imagine that human beings had to actually learn how to be

social,

in the same way we had to learn to walk upright or use tools.

In fact,

being social is a bit like a tool in itself,

and mankind’s early mastery of this skill developed in tandem with his

ability to work together with a group and expand his reach.

Another more recent article in the same journal proposes that early man

developed language primarily as a social skill,

i.e. to share advanced ideas with other members of the group.

In the 2015 paper,

Morgan and colleagues argue that the use of particular kinds of early tools was

a “socially transmitted” skill and that language developed so that humans

could teach one another about these tools.

They make a case that the tools common in that era were such that it wasn’t

good enough to merely imitate someone using them or use trial and error to

figure them out.

Rather,

in experiments using modern-day humans,

they showed that the understanding and use of these tools would have

necessitated a language to go with them.

The authors of this paper claim that humans leaped forward to the next

technological era in proto-human development because they figured out a way to

reach one another via language.

We can imagine how this might have played out.

A great new technology is excitedly shared in a tribe—but hand gestures and

demonstrations are just not enough.

We can almost picture the urgent necessity to create a more nuanced

tool—words—and to use them effectively.

To explain,

to praise or criticize,

to request or deny,

to plan,

even to lie or deceive—all of these require language,

and language almost instantly allows us to access one another,

to partake in the worlds of those around us in a way that’s otherwise

impossible.

This is an incredible idea - that language,

and indeed communication and social interaction in general,

arose not spontaneously but out of need.

This suggests that sociability in our species is not optional—it’s part of

who we are,

built right into our history and our D. N. A. .

There are many arguments for fine-tuning your social skills,

but perhaps the most persuasive is that being social is so fundamentally a part

of being human,

you cannot consider a life successful unless a person has achieved some degree

of social success.

Psychologist Susan Pinker explored not the historical and evolutionary aspect

of language and its value to humans,

but the biological benefits,

right here in the present.

The idea is that in-person social contact has profound effects on our nervous

systems and our well-being in general.

The so-called “village effect” is that people who have regular face-to-face

contact with other human beings live happier,

longer,

more robust lives.

Why?

The suggestion is that social contact releases a cocktail of neurotransmitters

in the brain that are powerful antidotes to stress and its effects on the body

and mind.

This will probably seem quite obvious to extroverts and those with extended

social networks - being sociable is,

almost quite literally,

a matter of life and death.

Having harmonious family relationships,

a healthy romantic partner,

friends and allies,

people in the community that you’re on congenial terms with,

children and parents,

mentors,

confidantes and spiritual teachers—all of these interactions have a physical

impact on the human organism,

modulating stress,

strengthening the immune system and making us more resilient to the challenges

of life.

This may explain why certain populations in certain countries are so long-lived.

The diet,

environment or lifestyle of these populations known for longevity may certainly

play a role,

but there’s a case to be made for “village” life and its benefits.

After all,

it’s widely accepted today that humans evolved in small bands of no more than

a hundred people,

and our need for this close social interaction among a tight-knit group is as

fundamental a part of our well-being as it ever was.

The effects are not just physical,

though.

There’s a reason that psychologists or doctors will ask a new patient or

client what their social support network is like.

They know that solid social interaction has measurable effects on how well a

patient copes with the struggles of life,

and how quickly they recover from any adversity.

A recent study conducted by Emily Rogalski and colleagues at the Cognitive

Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center (C. N. A. D. C. )

in Chicago has explored how staying social well into later life can have

massive effects on brain health,

staving off dementia and giving elderly people the cognitive profile of people

decades their junior.

This won’t come as any surprise to care workers or those who happen to have a

spritely older relative in their social circle - staying social helps people

remain mentally sharp.

So-called “SuperAgers”—those who are in their eighties but have the

mental acuity of middle-aged people—had more friends overall,

and kept more socially active.

As a consequence,

their short- and long-term memory seemed to benefit,

and they had a more developed sense of their own autonomy,

better self-acceptance,

and a more robust purpose in life.

It’s also possible that these benefits have a physical correlate in the

brain—there are suggestions that certain regions are literally thickened in

those elder folks who are more social overall.

Granted,

these findings don’t necessarily mean you have to be a relentless social

butterfly,

flitting from one social engagement to another even if you don’t enjoy it.

The kind of healthy,

beneficial socializing that Pinker is talking about is likely a subtler

phenomenon—and we shouldn’t forget that interactions with other people are

also a prime source of stress in themselves.

Certainly,

many people would say that divorces,

family animosity,

bullying,

social pressure,

gossip or feeling a lack of privacy all take years off of one’s life!

The value of being social is likely complex—just like other factors that we

consider necessary conditions for good health,

like diet and genetics.

And while these studies focus on older people,

there’s no reason to doubt that the same mechanisms work for younger folks.

If you care about living long and prospering,

being sociable just may be as essential as quitting smoking,

maintaining a healthy weight and eating well.

The Social Brain Hypothesis.

To bring more clarity and expand on the prior section,

the social brain hypothesis states that human brains evolved and became bigger

in order to be more social,

not the other way around.

Furthermore,

the theory states that increasing the capacity for communication about a wide

range of subjects was the only reason that brains grew.

British professor of anthropology and evolutionary psychology Robin Dunbar

observed that the size of a species’ social group was the most accurate

predictor of brain size—specifically,

the outermost brain layer known as the neocortex.

This discovery led to the social brain theory.

Scientists believe that the first species with brains on the scale of modern

humans—known as Homo heidelbergenesis—originally appeared some 600,000 to

700,000 years ago in Africa.

These ancestors to Homo sapiens are also thought to be the first hominids who

buried their dead,

built central campsites,

and utilized a division of labor where they worked together to hunt more

effectively.

This is no coincidence.

The reasoning behind the social brain hypothesis is that primates have

unusually large brains for their body sizes relative to all other

vertebrates—a result of needing to manage unusually complex social systems.

In other words,

in order for society to grow and thrive,

the brain needed to evolve to cope with the cognitive demands of being social.

As complex social behaviors limit the sizes of our social groups,

there is emerging evidence that shows the evolutionary process has favored

individuals with the brain architecture most suited to performing and further

developing those social behaviors.

Interestingly,

the main factor that distinguishes human brains from those of other primates is

the size of the aforementioned neocortex—the part of the brain comprising

many of the brain areas involved in complex social cognition.

These functions include conscious thought,

language,

behavioral and emotional regulation,

as well as empathy and the theory of mind—the thing that enables humans to

understand the feelings and intentions of others.

What does all of this mean?

Humans,

as a species,

are endowed with a “social brain,” which essentially biologically

hard-wires us to interact with each other.

Living a life of isolation is correlated with higher risk of loneliness and

depression because it requires fighting 600,000–700,000 years of evolution

compelling us to socialize.

We need to be around others for our mental health,

no matter our temperament or personality type.

The Effects Of Loneliness.

And what about the other side,

when we are prevented from indulging our social brains?

Social status and success are not mere matters of vanity or self-confidence,

but rather crucial factors in our overall well-being.

In fact,

a lack of adequate social interaction or exposure can have very real

consequences on our health—mental and even physical.

Loneliness can,

quite literally,

be lethal.

I’s not just a matter of cliché - there is scientific and evidence-based

research behind this unfortunate fact.

The U. C. L. A. Loneliness Scale,

a standard American questionnaire on loneliness,

uses twenty questions to determine how often individuals experience feelings of

close connection with others.

The results indicated that as much as 30 percent of the total American

population feels socially isolated and lonely at any given time.

That 30 percent figure is staggering when considering the implications of such

loneliness on the health of some 95 million plus Americans.

Loneliness varies widely with age but is especially detrimental for the

elderly,

as it can expedite the process of declining faculties and thus lead to earlier

loss of life.

Naturally,

you might be thinking that loneliness is a significantly bigger problem among

the elderly than the rest of the population because the members of an older

person’s social circle are more likely to have passed away as they all age.

But it turns out that loneliness is also pervasive among middle-aged and young

people.

A 2010 survey published by the A. A. R. P. showed that greater than 33 percent

of adults aged forty-five and over report being chronically lonely,

meaning that their feelings of loneliness have been consistent over a long

period of time.

This is even more alarming when you consider that when the same survey was

conducted in 2000,

only 20 percent of participants reported chronic loneliness.

As approximately 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day,

that number is likely to grow considerably higher by 2020.

Researchers at the University of Chicago conducted a study over a five-year

time frame that measured the correlation between loneliness and future

depression.

They found that people who had reported being lonely at the beginning of the

study had a much greater tendency to report depression near the end of the

study.

In fact,

the study found something truly surprising—people who were lonely at the

beginning of the study were actually more likely to report feeling depressed at

the end of the study than those who had been depressed to begin with.

In other words,

loneliness was a more common precedent for depression than actual depression

was,

and the situation is only getting worse.

It is quite surprising that despite the promised global connectivity of our

contemporary digital lives,

the research captures the spreading of loneliness in society.

There are studies in progress specifically interested in the relationship

between online socialization and loneliness.

This field of study will only continue to become more interesting as social

media becomes a more significant part of our social life.

Many studies have already shown that high social media use has a negative

effect on happiness and social fulfillment.

At this point,

social networks have grown too big to simply be phased out,

so society will have to find ways to use those networks in a more positive

manner if loneliness and depression are to be curbed before reaching epidemic

levels—if they haven’t already.

Brain structure and functionality change over thousands of years,

and a large percentage of our modern communication methods are simply too new

to be fully understood in relation to the social brain.

The telephone has been around for just over a century,

and instant messaging or texting for far less time than that.

Is it possible that communicating predominantly through computers and phones

instead of face-to-face simply doesn’t fill our evolved need for socializing?

Or perhaps the rise in loneliness and feelings of isolation isn’t a direct

result of social networks and instant messaging.

Could it be an outcome of not understanding how to use technologies in a

healthy manner?

Or is it that the human brain is physiologically unable to keep up in terms of

evolutionary adaptation?

These questions are still waiting to be examined in deeper studies.

In the meantime,

it’s important for all of us to be mindful of how various levels of

technology,

and specifically social media use,

impact our health and emotional well-being.

If chronic loneliness ever becomes an issue for you,

consider that perhaps you are not getting enough face-to-face interaction to

meet your biological and evolutionary needs.

Health,

in all its aspects,

implies achieving balance.

There can’t be too little or too much,

only a certain extent that we can consider healthy social interaction.

Hyper-socialization in the social media can also cause strain.

What can we say then is a healthy dose of socialization?

The Limits Of Our Sociality.

While social interaction has been the driving force behind the evolution of our

brains,

we do still have limits on how much socializing we can handle.

Even the most extroverted person in the world has a finite amount of brain

power and energy to socialize,

meaning that we simply aren’t capable of socializing forever or with everyone.

Robin Dunbar,

the same scientist responsible for the social brain hypothesis,

consulted the anthropological record in search of what was eventually named

Dunbar’s number—the cognitive limit to the number of people with whom

it’s possible for an individual to maintain stable social relationships.

In this case,

relationships are classified as stable when the given individual knows who

every other individual is and how they relate to each of the other members of

the group.

Dunbar proposed that an average human can comfortably maintain only about 150

stable relationships at any given time.

Makes you rethink the number of people you are connected to on social media,

doesn’t it?

The number 150 isn’t actually considered precise for all humans,

but rather the average of the spectrum of possibilities for stable

relationships that ranges from one to two hundred.

It’s generally thought that going too far over two hundred will become

unstable unless it is countered by the implementation of more restrictive

rules,

laws,

and enforced norms.

This number also doesn’t include past social relationships that are no longer

active or short-term acquaintances.

But how did Dunbar come to land on 150 people?

Well,

he started off with the assumption that the current size of the average human

neocortex became standard sometime around 250,000 years ago,

during the Pleistocene epoch.

Dunbar then went on to search anthropological and ethnographical literature

looking for census-like information for various hunter-gather societies,

hoping to find an accurate approximation of typical group sizes in those

ancient societies.

He found many examples of groups approximately 150 members large—from

Neolithic farming villages and typical units of professional armies in Roman

antiquity before the common era,

all the way through time to modern Hutterite settlements originating in the

16th century.

Dunbar noted that ancient societies could be broken up into three categories

based on group sizes - small bands of thirty to fifty people,

cultural lineage groups of one to two hundred people,

and tribes with anywhere between five hundred and twenty-five hundred members.

But 150 remained the most useful number,

as a series of other values for modern human social capabilities were derived

from it.

There is actually a formula for roughly estimating all of the other numbers in

the series,

a “rule of three."

Multiplying the Dunbar number by three gives us an approximation of our total

number of acquaintances,

and multiplying that number by three again provides the absolute limit on our

social relationships—the number of people for whom we can put a name to a

face at a given time.

Dividing 150 by three,

meanwhile,

gives us the fifty friends whom we are at least somewhat close with.

Doing so again will then give us our fifteen to twenty confidants—the friends

whom we can turn to for sympathy and support.

Finally,

dividing by three once more approximately gives us our most intimate friends or

family members,

the people who have the strongest influence on our personalities.

It’s a very real illustration of whom you should focus your attention and

time on—and why you should avoid spreading yourself too thin.

While the compositions of all of these groups in the series are fluid,

the overall size generally remains static.

People might be moving from one level to another—or out of your social

periphery altogether—but each void in your personal social hierarchy will be

filled by someone new.

We often don’t realize how systematic our social relationships are,

but reflecting on the Dunbar numbers and how they relate to you personally can

be quite revealing.

Imagine you have a friend group with eight members,

and you all hang out with each other on a regular basis.

Regardless of how much you like each member of the group,

it’s practically certain that only a few of the group members are your best

friends and confidants.

It’s great to be part of a big and diverse group,

but there’s just no getting around the fact that we all have limited social

energy and cognition.

One of the ways that being mindful about social limitations can help you is

when it comes to jealousy.

Given how important social status and success are to humans,

it’s not surprising that we can feel jealous about how friends,

as well as romantic partners,

choose to spend their time and social resources when it’s not according to

our wishes.

Our neocortices aren’t going to start growing again anytime soon,

though,

so the healthier route is to understand and accept that every person has a

right to allocate their limited energy and cognition however they see fit.

We can only control our own choices and decisions,

and having expectations about what other people do doesn’t make us any

happier or healthier.

At the same time,

it can be difficult for many of us to spend our own time in the ways we

actually want to.

The series of Dunbar’s numbers seems to support the idea of having the

highest quality relationships possible over a high quantity of them.

Ultimately,

we all have limits on how many close relationships we can maintain at a given

time,

and with that in mind,

it certainly makes sense to pick our friends carefully and spend our time how

we really want to.

We are social creatures,

to an extent.

Socializing,

regardless of how you feel about it,

is a fundamental part of being human.

It was the driving force behind the evolution and growth of our brains—the

thing that enabled us to create modern civilization as we know it today.

Technology has now connected us to more people and across greater distances

than ever before,

yet loneliness and depression are on the rise.

It will be up to each of us as individuals,

therefore,

to learn healthy social practices to adapt to our rapidly changing environments.

But as our technology continues to change,

our brains still remain much the same as they have been for hundreds of

thousands of years.

Therefore,

there is perhaps no better method to adapt your social skills to the modern day

than to understand the fundamentals of social intelligence—to know which

behaviors lead to isolation and depression,

and which ones can improve your social satisfaction and fulfillment.

Man is a social animal.

So much so,

that there are scientific bases for socialization as the foundation of human

evolution and the negative consequences of depriving a person of it.

Our social nature can be traced back to our prehistory.

The development of complex social systems—of communication and

socialization—define significantly our behavior as a species today.

Having a wide social network and being highly regarded within it not only reaps

practical benefits,

but is also a foundation of one’s overall well-being.

Having an active social lifestyle prevents mental deterioration among aged

groups.

It also avoids prolonged loneliness that might just end up becoming a

full-blown depression.

Nonetheless,

there is no such thing as a socialize-all-you-want lifestyle.

There is a limit to the number of people with whom we can accommodate

meaningful and authentic interaction.

Robin Dunmar pegs it to 150.

This is different from a person’s most intimate relationships,

which comprises a much smaller number.

This makes us think about our multiple social media lives.

It makes us consider the possibly hundreds to thousands of contacts we maintain

online.

Despite today’s convenience of online hyper socialization,

we are nowhere near happier.

Rather,

data shows that we are getting more and more unhappy as a population.

As we go further into the book,

we will cast a light on different aspects of our social life using scientific

and anthropological lenses.

Our goal is to explore how we can maximize what we know and what we have in

order to achieve a high-quality,

beneficial social status.

We will start off in the next chapter by unpacking the idea of popularity.

Takeaways -

•Social intelligence is about how to fit in,

charm people,

and allow socializing to help rather than hinder you in achieving your goals.

Luckily,

there are fairly predictable ways to do this,

and that’s because we have millennia of data and behavioral patterns to study.

For most of this book,

most of the tactics can relate in some way back to primitive,

instinctual ways humans navigated the world.

We’re the same as we were back then—we just have fancier clothes now.

•It’s been hypothesized that our brains actually grew and developed as a

result of needing to be social—for hunting,

for procreation,

and for general survival tactics.

Communication is what sets us apart from most of the animals in the world.

•At the heart of it all,

this simply means that human are social animals.

If we go into isolation,

we go crazy.

If we feel loneliness for an extended period of time,

it literally kills us.

The more we are around people,

the happier we tend to feel in general,

and this becomes especially apparent when we study the elderly.

•Yet,

are there limits to our social interactions?

How should we most effectively and efficiently focus our efforts?

It has been hypothesized that the upper limit for our network we can keep in

our minds is roughly 150 people,

and this also springs from evolutionary patterns of behaviors.

Before humans domesticated livestock and learned about agriculture and

cultivating harvests,

we were largely nomadic tribes,

and these tribes naturally sustained a size of roughly 150 people.

Obviously,

this has changed in modern times,

and it’s no small wonder that it’s been a confusing,

anxious,

and even depressing time for many of us,

as the software for our brains hasn’t been updated in a few thousand years.

This has been

The Science of Social Intelligence:

45 Methods to Captivate People,

Make a Powerful Impression,

and Subconsciously Trigger Social Status and Value [Second ... (The Psychology of Social Dynamics Book 7) By Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.