Hello, listeners!
This is Russell on "Social Skills Coaching," where we're delving into social psychology to become more likable, charismatic, and productive.
Today, March 26, 2025, brings an exciting episode with a special focus from Patrick King’s book, The Science of Social Intelligence.
In this book, You’ll learn to understand and leverage motivation and popularity dynamics in social situations for better outcomes.
We will cover key topics such as how dominance is different than prestige but equally important to projecting an appealing persona, why warmth matters more over competence when forming connections with others, and strategies to increase your own perceived value without compromising personal integrity or authenticity.
Join us in unraveling the science of social interaction that will empower you for better relationships today!
In this episode, we'll explore essential insights from Chapter 2 of the book about becoming a "Cool Kid."
Now let’s go back to the aforementioned teenager in our mind—that awkward-looking figure at the throes of a rapid physical and emotional growth spurt.
Now take a look back to your own high school days.
Think about your own social clique as a teenager, and your adversaries.
There’s the exasperating bully and his group.
The cheerleader-type girls and their rival gang.
The mister or miss achiever that everybody loves.
The school organization leaders who are well-rounded enough to run in the elections.
Of course, let us not forget the outcasts—the ones who barely have friends, or are friends only with other outcasts.
What I’m getting at is that there’s no greater demonstration of the importance of social status than with children and teenagers.
For many, the culmination of this process comes in high school—a time when it might have seemed like the cool or popular kids could do whatever they wanted, while the normal and less-popular kids experienced a much different reality.
It’s in these stages that we are placed, partly by ourselves and by society in much bigger part, into a virtual petri dish from which our attitudes and conceptions develop and influence our social health and status later on.
This is the same petri dish in which scientists and researchers look to gain valuable insights on the human social dimension.
Now I’m sure there are many happy, silly memories that could well up from our high school reminiscing.
Of course, there are also terrible memories.
The point is, however, that thinking back on them as an adult provides us a vantage point from which we can understand the underlying social assumptions we may have held.
Looking back at our teenage assumptions, we can ask, how do these notions hold water in our present selves?
This chapter will compare some of these notions to the findings and postulations of scientific researchers.
By the end of this exploration, we’ll be able to outline for ourselves the nuances, misconceptions, and prerequisites of the notion of popularity.
The general assumption is that popular kids probably had better social skills and were often more humorous or entertaining than their less-popular classmates, but is that really all it takes to achieve high social status?
Popularity, whatever it is, is a quality that people want no matter the circumstance.
Given that tendency, is it really the case that all we have to be is well-known or even famous?
Is this the best way to measure our success and even happiness?
Chapter 2.
Become a “Cool Kid”
Now let’s go back to the aforementioned teenager in our mind—that awkward-looking figure at the throes of a rapid physical and emotional growth spurt.
Now take a look back to your own high school days.
Think about your own social clique as a teenager, and your adversaries.
There’s the exasperating bully and his group.
The cheerleader-type girls and their rival gang.
The mister or miss achiever that everybody loves.
The school organization leaders who are well-rounded enough to run in the elections.
Of course, let us not forget the outcasts—the ones who barely have friends, or are friends only with other outcasts.
What I’m getting at is that there’s no greater demonstration of the importance of social status than with children and teenagers.
For many, the culmination of this process comes in high school—a time when it might have seemed like the cool or popular kids could do whatever they wanted, while the normal and less-popular kids experienced a much different reality.
It’s in these stages that we are placed, partly by ourselves and by society in much bigger part, into a virtual petri dish from which our attitudes and conceptions develop and influence our social health and status later on.
This is the same petri dish in which scientists and researchers look to gain valuable insights on the human social dimension.
Now I’m sure there are many happy, silly memories that could well up from our high school reminiscing.
Of course, there are also terrible memories.
The point is, however, that thinking back on them as an adult provides us a vantage point from which we can understand the underlying social assumptions we may have held.
Looking back at our teenage assumptions, we can ask, how do these notions hold water in our present selves?
This chapter will compare some of these notions to the findings and postulations of scientific researchers.
By the end of this exploration, we’ll be able to outline for ourselves the nuances, misconceptions, and prerequisites of the notion of popularity.
The general assumption is that popular kids probably had better social skills and were often more humorous or entertaining than their less-popular classmates, but is that really all it takes to achieve high social status?
Popularity, whatever it is, is a quality that people want no matter the circumstance.
Given that tendency, is it really the case that all we have to be is well-known or even famous?
Is this the best way to measure our success and even happiness?
Motivation and Popularity
Given the choice, it’s a fair bet that just about everybody would prefer popularity and the accompanying social validation over the opposite.
It simply feels good to be well-liked and respected by our peers.
To achieve traditional popularity requires some amount of effort to socialize and connect with people, and that effort requires energy.
Everybody has a limited supply of energy.
Hence, the motivation to spend that energy socializing is a significant part of what it takes to be popular.
In reality, of course, not everybody wants to be popular to the same extent as everyone else—to spend one’s energy toward socializing, so to speak.
However, as it turns out, there is a strong correlation between how rewarding popularity feels to people and how popular they actually are.
Dr. Dianna Martinez and her team of research colleagues at Columbia University found evidence of a positive correlation between higher social status and social support and the density of dopamine type 2 (D2) and type 3 (D3) receptors in the striatum—a region of the brain that is largely responsible for our feelings of reward and motivation, something that dopamine plays a critical role in producing.
Normal and healthy volunteers were assessed to determine their social status and social support systems and were subsequently scanned using positron emission tomography, a technology that enables us to see D2 receptors in the brain.
The volunteers who had denser D2 receptors were the same ones who had the highest social status, which suggests that popular individuals are more likely to experience life as rewarding and stimulating as a direct result of having more targets for dopamine to take effect within the striatum.
These people literally had different brain structures than their less popular peers.
Dr. Martinez summed up the results by saying, “We showed that low levels of dopamine receptors were associated with low social status and that high levels of dopamine receptors were associated with higher social status.
The same type of association was seen with the volunteers’ reports of social support they experience from their friends, family, or significant other.”
This contradicts our earlier assumption that personality traits were the underlying cause behind popularity.
Rather, social status has to do more with how our brain works.
Simply put, our brain structure and how much dopamine we produce influences the formation of certain personality traits that may result in popularity.
The editor of Biological Psychiatry, Dr. John Krystal, commented on the results of the study and said, “These data shed interesting light into the drive to achieve social status, a basic social process.
It would make sense that people who had higher levels of D2 receptors, i.e., were more highly motivated and engaged by social situations, would be high achievers and would have higher levels of social support.” Popular people enjoy being with people and in social situations more, which will naturally make you more extroverted and charming.
Indeed, having a healthy amount of dopamine will take one a long way.
At this point, you may be wondering: what you can do to take advantage of this new information?
Is there a way to safely and naturally increase the density of dopamine receptors in our brains?
Well, yes, kind of.
There are chemicals called dopamine antagonists that are used to treat psychological conditions by artificially lowering dopamine, causing dopamine receptor density to increase in order to bring your brain back to an equilibrium.
However, a sudden drop of dopamine could mean bad news.
This chemical approach comes with loads of undesirable side effects and is not realistic for most people.
Don’t discourage yourself just yet.
There are some realistic ways to increase your dopamine receptors—or rather, avoid desensitizing them—that don’t come with the dangerous side effects.
It basically involves doing fewer of the activities that artificially increase our dopamine levels: excessive Internet and TV use, coffee, recreational drugs, alcohol, watching pornography, or consuming a lot of sugar and processed food.
Generally speaking, it’s a matter of habit and lifestyle.
If you are addicted to something unhealthy, it’s likely because that thing is giving you a hit of dopamine.
This will make you feel good for the time being, but it has a long-term consequence.
Constant artificial boosting of your dopamine level has a numbing effect on your dopamine-detecting brain receptors.
Motivation and reward behavior are dulled as your sensitivity to dopamine decreases.
In essence, the point is to starve yourself of dopamine until you spend time with people.
Making conscious choices to do fewer of the things that give us those quick and easily repetitive dopamine hits will have a positive long-term impact on our feelings of motivation and reward in social situations, which in turn can help us to become more popular.
Social Sensitivity
In addition to being biologically predisposed to seek popularity due to greater dopamine receptor density, popular people have another interesting biological difference as compared to people with lower social status.
The brains of popular people are more sensitive to social dynamics in their environment.
You may have wondered how the people you know with high social status achieved that level of popularity and influence.
On a surface level, it probably seems that those people are simply friendly and fun to be around.
Well, that is indeed the case.
However, research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences probed deeper underneath these two positive traits.
Scientists conducted brain-imaging studies that led to a recognition of a common denominator among the participants regarded as popular in their social clique.
The findings suggest that there is likely something much deeper going on that we aren’t aware of.
The research was performed at Columbia University by Noam Zerubavel and a team of his colleagues.
They recruited twenty-six student volunteers from two school clubs to participate and had each volunteer rate how much they liked every other individual in their club.
The scores were compiled for each participant, and the final numbers were used to rank all of the members by likability or popularity.
The students then lay in brain scanners and were shown photos of the faces of their peers, in addition to an occasional “ghost face”—a morphed average of all of the other faces.
As an experimental control, the students were told that their task was to instinctually press a key for each face that was presented, indicating whether they thought it was a real person or a ghost face.
The reality, of course, was that the researchers only wanted to see how their brain activity varied according to the popularity of the person they were currently presented with.
There were two main issues at hand that researchers wanted to work out.
First, they wanted to see whether or not participants’ brains responded differently according to the popularity of the person in each photo.
After that, they wanted to analyze whether popular people’s brains, in particular, responded differently to the exercise relative to those of their less-popular classmates.
The results were interesting on both fronts.
Independently of their own popularity levels, when participants were shown photos of more popular peers, their brains subsequently displayed more neural activity in the “social cognition system” involved in understanding how other people think and perceive each other.
This suggests that the more we care about a person’s popularity, the more motivated we are to consider and analyze what they might be thinking.
When it came to the more popular participants, images of their neural responses showed that they had even greater sensitivity to social structure.
Their brains were more sensitively attuned to the popularity of others on a subconscious level.
All of the participants showed different activity levels based on the popularity of the person they were looking at.
However, those activity levels varied more widely in popular people than with unpopular people.
This means they were more empathetic and self-aware of relationships across social groups.
It also implies that popular people are, at least in good part, popular because they care about being popular on a fundamental level.
This lends a plausible explanation as to how these people ascended to popularity in the first place—having a sharper awareness of the popularity of others enables them to selectively align themselves with the people who have high social status.
The finding is also in line with prior psychological research that showed popular children tend to be more aware of who’s popular and who isn’t.
It’s hard to sugarcoat that evidence—people, on average, simply seem to devote more cognitive resources to you the more social status you have.
This can certainly explain why being popular is desirable, but it can also be a curse to somebody who attains higher social status and isn’t able to keep their ego in check when they inevitably get treated with greater regard.
At a fundamental level, this provides a solid explanation for how social cliques form and why it can be so difficult for somebody new to integrate themselves into a different clique.
Part of being popular is hanging out with other popular people, and the members of your public social circle likely play a significant role in how your own popularity is perceived by others.
How to become accepted within a particular social circle is another matter to be covered throughout this book.
Nonetheless, understanding social status and what changes it is a key to popularity.
Dominance versus Prestige
The relationship between brain architecture and one’s socialization behavior doesn’t seem obviously apparent in our everyday lives, considering how much scientific research has been invested in this subject.
It’s not as if we can measure our dopamine on an everyday, ordinary basis.
Predominantly, there are two modes in which we achieve social status—dominance and prestige.
These two categorize our various approaches in terms of navigating through our social terrain.
A careful consideration of these two factors, along with applying them in moderation, with proper timing, and in good taste, can help you move up any social hierarchy.
Dominance means being stronger, more intimidating, or more powerful than other people.
Prestige, on the other hand, means being more skilled, successful, and knowledgeable than the average person.
These are the traditional paths to being popular.
Most of us, if not all, became familiar with dominance while growing up.
It may have seemed as if this is the best or even the only method of gaining the respect and admiration of our peers.
Often, the schoolyard bullies who use intimidation, coercion, and fear-inducing tactics appear to be the top dogs.
Meanwhile, the students who put in the effort to get high grades in school are rarely socially rewarded for doing so at the time, at least in Western cultures.
Those who get good grades do, however, have greater opportunities for further education and more impactful careers down the line.
As a result, they might be recognized and respected for their skills, success, and knowledge later in life.
Joseph Henrich and Gil White studied dominance and prestige within the context of sociology, sociolinguistics, ethnography, and ethnology.
They found that the two paths to social status evolved separately and for different purposes.
As such, these two modes manifest in varying degrees depending upon the situation, context, or the wider culture as a whole.
A person’s mental and physical dispositions will naturally determine which strategy— or which combination of the two—is most useful to employ in any given situation.
Somebody who grows up in a less-progressive society or finds themselves in a highly adversarial environment, such as a prison, might find that the ability to intimidate others or enforce threats is the most effective way to reach the upper echelon of the social hierarchy.
And of course, if a person has a tendency to challenge and fight, or has natural physical strength, you can guess which path they will take.
For those who find themselves in social environments that lack dominance hierarchies, having the mental skills necessary to acquire knowledge and develop ideas that are valuable to society will make them more inclined to attain social status through prestige.
As mentioned, approaching social navigation in terms of dominance and prestige is a practical matter.
We can fine-tune our social tendencies between the two poles.
We can be mindful of them.
We can also strive to be better with these two as a guide.
You can consider for yourself what routes to take to increase your own social status.
This requires an honest assessment of your traits, strengths, and weaknesses so you can effectively use what you’ve got and minimize flaws.
Keep in mind that there is no one rigid step-by-step way of doing things as much as there is no absolute right or wrong between the two approaches.
Pitfalls abound in both options if not properly balanced, thoroughly self-assessed, and executed with grace and subtlety.
For example, you may gain some authority over others if you become extremely dominant like the big bully from grade school, but is that really worth it if you sacrifice a good deal of likability in the process?
Will the stature you gain be worth all the resentment?
Having a dominant role suggests a certain degree of responsibility and accountability.
Your social base will expect you to provide results.
People tend to look up to a leader figure who assures everyone that everything is under control.
People respond well to others who are confident and self-assured.
When this is taken to the extremes of being cocky or self-absorbed, there will be a problem.
Moreover, empathy is crucial and results do matter.
Dominance implies that there will be expectations that need to be met.
On one hand, physicality may also play a major role in dominance, as somebody who is big in stature might have an easier time pulling off this trait than somebody who isn’t particularly tall or strong.
But this aspect is bound to have nuances.
How much of physical dominance is based on stature, and how much is based on visible health and fitness?
An obese person who is six feet tall and weighs 250 pounds is a lot less intimidating, on average, than somebody who is also six feet tall and 250 pounds but is a bodybuilder, for example.
Appearances are sometimes just that, appearances.
Besides, strength may come in different forms.
Physical strength doesn’t necessarily translate to strength of will.
So what about the prestige route?
Although not as apparent, there are still plenty of pitfalls with this strategy.
Conceit doesn’t pay.
An intelligent and knowledgeable individual will be much less likely to attain social status through prestige if they are constantly reminding people of how smart and successful they are.
It often requires a good deal of finesse to make people aware of your intellectual prowess without giving off the impression of being arrogant or judgmental.
And being highly skilled, successful, and knowledgeable won’t mean much socially if you don’t have the communication skills to convey your abilities in a way the average person can understand and appreciate.
The key here is to realize your goals of getting on top in a manner that is ethical, involves introspection, and is mindful of others.
It is possible to take shortcuts to achieve some fast success, but it’s certainly not advisable.
A person who needs to put others down in order to appear dominant will eventually end up just looking insecure and inadequate.
A physical trainer without the knowledge or discipline to be healthy and fit personally will not be trusted by others who want to become healthy and fit themselves.
Dominance and prestige are what people naturally look for, and you need to authentically increase your standing in both of those respects.
No matter how you choose to go about climbing up the social hierarchy, being genuine as well as conscious of how others perceive you throughout the process will certainly increase your odds for success.
None of us were born with brains tailor-made for social success; none of us were born able to play basketball professionally, either.
That doesn’t mean we can’t improve upon our natural traits and take an advanced leap or two into what we know is instinctually valued.
Warmth and Competence
We have covered in the previous section the two approaches to climb the ranks in terms of social hierarchy.
We haven’t, however, looked into what is really the glue that binds people to you.
When it comes down to it, what are the things that really make a person likeable?
Think about the people you have known and liked.
Why did you like them?
Why do you think others like you?
Susan Fiske and Amy Cuddy have done extensive research on this question and have determined that we judge people on two main criteria—their warmth and their competence.
Here, “judge” merely means to decide whether you like, trust and respect a person and want to interact with them further.
According to Fiske and Cuddy liking (warmth) and respecting (recognizing competence) account for about 80 percent of the judgments we make about people, which then go on to determine whether we work with them, date them, form friendships with them and so on.
In other words, it’s a big deal!
These two traits can form a matrix of four possible profiles.
Consciously or unconsciously, we are all transmitting information that others receive and log, helping them decide whether we’re likeable people.
Similarly, we’re constantly taking in that information about others and determining whether we like them and want to get closer.
If being likeable is a goal, then it’s worth paying attention to how you’re presenting yourself.
A person with high warmth and high competence will win others’ admiration—think of a charismatic boss or a deeply charming person that everyone loves and wants to be like.
The kind who inspires, leads or enthralls people—these are the people we want to emulate in life.
High-competence and low-warmth people are respected but not liked—i.e.
envied.
This can be OK in work contexts, but you don’t want to be an intimidating know-it-all, or someone who is perceived as intelligent but unkind.
Many productivity-obsessed managers fall into this category, spending time to enhance their competence without a thought for how warm and likeable they are.
High warmth and low competence are qualities of someone we like but don’t necessarily respect—someone we pity, like an elderly lady who is sweet but incapable of accomplishing much.
You might genuinely care for a person but consider them a bumbling idiot!
Think of the class clown archetype who generally depends on others for the heavy lifting, but they don’t mind because he’s charming and fun to have around.
Finally, low-warmth and low-competence people cause us to feel contempt and dislike—naturally.
They aren’t likeable or good at anything, and we may judge them as not worth the investment of our time.
This is the category we reserve for criminals, sociopaths, lazy and selfish people; those we neither like nor respect.
This framework can be very useful in dealing with others, but especially in thinking about how we conduct ourselves in social situations.
Being competent, we inspire respect; being warm, we inspire trust.
Both are important if we want to be liked and maintain good social connections.
Without enough of either, you could be perceived as cold, untrustworthy, inept, or a complete waste of time.
Let’s consider competence.
How exactly does one convey competence?
You could get a qualification, provide a valuable service, solve a problem, lead a team.
Luckily, many people will see competence in one area and assume that it carries over to others, especially if one is competent in an area that is generalizable—those that imply good leadership, insight, intelligence and diligence to achieve.
Also luckily, we tend to be very forgiving in how we assign competence to someone, and seldom take away the label we’ve chosen even when that person demonstrates low competence.
We write it off and assume it was an isolated incident.
Warmth, however, is different, arguably because the ability to accurately judge another’s warmth is more fundamental to survival from an evolutionary point of view.
Here, we judge warmth in the opposite way we do competence—a single act of kindness is appreciated but seldom generalized, whereas a single act of unkindness is never forgotten and more easily assumed to be an accurate representation of that person in general.
This might be an unconscious assumption—it’s easy to fake being good, whereas someone might be showing their “true colors” if they act even once in a harsh, selfish or insensitive way.
Knowing all this, how can we make sure that we’re conveying competence and especially warmth when we engage with others?
Fortunately, it’s not hard to do.
Smile genuinely and often and make eye contact.
Express an emotional and not just intellectual understanding of the people and facts around you.
Demonstrate empathy and be a good listener—and make efforts to show that you like and trust the other person, encouraging them to reciprocate.
Be fair, honest, kind.
It’s not rocket science, but it does take a little conscious effort sometimes!
In work contexts, you may need to focus more on conveying competence (although warmth is still needed).
Try to highlight your skills without boasting; don’t speak too slowly and enunciate properly to demonstrate intelligence, and speak clearly and assertively to show confidence.
Those who are judged as competent appear balanced, robust and not prone to excess or weak willpower—this means you don’t want to appear to overeat, drink too much, smoke, swear, or seem out of control in any way.
Importantly, you don’t want to overdo it.
Occasionally being a little self-effacing and humble will show that you’re not all ego and can work cooperatively in a team.
An unfortunate fact is that humans tend to judge each other as having one trait or another—with the assumption that if you’re not competent you have to be nice, and if you are competent, you can afford not to be kind to others.
This can mean that being perceived as competent or nice can in some contexts be seen as respective weaknesses.
This explains the prejudices aimed at women and mothers in the workplace, who are judged as incompetent merely because they are kind and considerate, or a rude doctor who is assumed to be more capable than he is precisely because he is so brusque and unfriendly to others.
It’s not strictly true that warmth and competence are “opposites”—after all, we admire people with both for a reason, and all our most beloved public figures inevitably hold both qualities.
It’s more a question of carefully balancing the way we are perceived.
Focus on those qualities that convey high warmth without threatening the appearance of competence.
These are traits that we roughly call “moral,” such as fairness, honesty, and loyalty—qualities all likeable human beings are expected to possess.
In body language, have an upright posture, maintain open eye contact and speak clearly and calmly.
Avoid trying to emulate a stereotype one way or another—i.e.
the super intimidating, highly competent person or the meek and suspiciously nice saintly figure.
Temper sharing your achievements with genuine humility, and you will earn people’s respect without alienating them.
Similarly, be warm, open and friendly but occasionally speak your mind, maintain your boundaries and be a little assertive so that people will come to both trust and respect you.
Use the context to guide your interactions with others—your approach at work will be different from your behavior in a romantic relationship or with your friends or children.
Finally, when in doubt, prioritize warm, authentic connections with people.
You can always impress them with your skills later.
To be valued and put into high regard by your peers is no child’s play.
It goes way beyond the cool-kid archetype of our collective adolescent imagination.
It’s not a mere popularity game: a quota of friends, acquaintances, or followers to acquire.
With the help of research, we get to understand that achieving social status is so much more than that.
Popularity manifests in the physical—in the cognitive, to be precise.
Research on brain structure and chemistry provides a perspective on the correlation of effective socialization with the number of dopamine receptors in the brain.
This implies that the more dopamine in the brain, the better a person is at socializing.
Popularity also implies responsibility to the feelings of others.
Being popular is opposite to being self-centered and self-serving.
Being widely accepted and well-known requires that a person is adept at connecting with people, which includes sensitivity to the well-being of others.
Striving to reach a better social status, as with any endeavor, requires energy.
Without motivation, there is simply no fuel for the drive.
We have discussed the chemical “dopamine-regulation” approach.
This is a plausible path, but one that may end up leading to disasters.
It requires professional help and is really just applicable for people suffering from addictive behaviors that artificially jack up dopamine.
Alternatively, we have at our disposal approaches to traversing the social hierarchy that are backed up by psychological research.
The knowledge these studies impart can be used as our practical guide.
As these studies show us, dominance and prestige are the two basic ways that people become popular among their peers.
These traits manifest early in the social interactions of our formative years.
They transform as we move into adulthood and continue to shape our interactions.
The trick really is to strike a balance between the two.
You’ll succeed in this balancing act as long as you are mindful and include authenticity as part of your goal.
But what really draws people to a socially intelligent individual?
It is the perfect combination of getting things done and just simply being kind and authentic.
You have to be warm and competent at the same time in order to arouse admiration and avoid inviting the pity, contempt, or envy of others.
Now forget the cool-kid attitude and leave it to the high-schoolers.
The best way to be cool is to be warm.
It’s all about being credible and authentic at the same time.
Takeaways:
• Our first dive into the finer points of social intelligence is all about how to be more likable and popular.
If you think about this question in the context of evolution, you might assume it has to do with some kind of standing within a tribe.
And to be quite honest, you’d be correct, and this shows how close we still are to our so-called primitive ancestors.
On a humorous note, we can use high-schoolers as a proxy for these ancestors, because high-schoolers are far more concerned with social standing and status, and are somewhat less sophisticated in their evaluations of such.
• A couple of the most powerful predictors in who will be likable and popular are the simple motivation and sensitivity to such factors.
In other words, those who want to be popular, and also can tell the difference between popular and unpopular kids, will be successful.
You can say the same about people wanting a better job, or wanting to learn to play the piano, for example—if they want to do it, and they are sensitive to what makes a good versus bad piano player, they surely stand a better chance—but it’s a bit surprising to hear that simple social standing and likability follows the same rules.
• Now we get to the primitive stuff.
Studies have shown that the following four traits are desirable, attractive, and place people high in social hierarchies: dominance, prestige, warmth, and competence.
The studies (one found dominance and prestige, and the other found warmth and competence) present what is a very logical set of traits for being cool, popular, likable, and of a high social status.
Just think about how these traits might function in a tribal setting, or as leader archetypes.
When it comes down to it, we’re a simple species.
And there you have it—a glimpse into the social psychology that has governed us since time immemorial, even though today's world is far more complex than any tribal setting.
But one thing remains true: being likable and competent still wins you friends, allies, partnerships, colleagues; they are essential in a society where interpersonal relationships often determine our success or failure to thrive—professionally and personally.
Now I invite each one of you as listeners, especially those seeking a more fulfilling life and interactions to join us on this journey towards becoming not only socially intelligent but also compassionate beings who value authentic connections over fleeting popularity or status—because when we build relationships based on understanding rather than manipulation, our social ecosystem becomes richer for all of us.
Take a moment to reflect: Are you willing to adopt these insights and become the masters of your own socio-psychological environment?
I believe in each one of you—and that's why we must commit to being more likeable, competent individuals who not only attract others but also foster relationships built on respect, empathy, and genuine connection.
Let’s grow together by embracing these scientifically-backed methods as our blueprint for social success—one conversation at a time.
Join the Social Skills Coaching community to continue learning more such strategies because remember, knowledge is power when it comes to navigating human relationships and becoming an influential part of society's fabric in the most positive way possible.
Thank you all for joining me today on this enlightening journey into social intelligence with The Science of Social Intelligence by Patrick King—tune in next time as we unravel more secrets from psychology that can help us live better and build stronger connections!
Remember, your path to becoming a likable person who makes meaningful impressions starts here.
Make it happen today!"