I just finished reading Click: The Magic of Instant Connections (thx, Matthew Swann, for telling me about the book). It’s a book that tries to answer the question of why do two people click with each other. And I found it extremely edifying. Indeed, I would also say that I “clicked” with the book. (Not only was it interesting but it was light on the fluff and it was well organized: after each principle was explained, a visual map was shown, explaining how the principle integrated into the bigger picture.)

The authors of Click found five “accelerators” that foster clicking: vulnerability in communication, proximity, resonance, similarity, and environment. I’ll take you on a tour of each of the factors.

Vulnerability is pretty straightforward. If your’e vulnerable in your communication with someone, then through the principle of reciprocity, you two will be more likely to click. But what does being vulnerable mean? For our purposes we can say there are two types of speech: transactional and connective. Transactional speech conveys information whereas connective speech conveys emotion. Transactional speech can be divided into three levels: phatic speech, which are not emotionally revealing and consists mostly of social niceties such as “How are you?” and “It’s nice to see you”; factual speech, such as “I live in New York”; and evaluative statements, which reveal our views about people or situations: “That movie was really funny”, “I like your new haircut.” These statements encompass a certain limited amount of risk, because our statements are potentially in discord with others’ views.

Connective speech consists of gut-level and then peak statements. Gut-level statements are things like “I’m sad you’re not here” and “I’m so glad you’re in my life.” Clearly there is more risk incurred when making such a statement. And then peak statements might include thoughts like “When you said you felt I wasn’t good with children, I was dumbfounded–and hurt. Do you really think I’m that insensitive? That I wouldn’t make a good father? I guess at heart I’m terrified that I’m going to lose you.” Clearly peak statements harbor a tremendous amount of risk for rejection; you’re cutting through all the superficial bullshit and exposing your true motives and feelings. The upshot of making such statements is that by using peak level language, the chance of a magical “click” connection occurring is significantly greater.

The next accelerator of a click-connection is proximity. Simply by being near someone, you’re more likely to form a connection. This is because you’re going to have a lot of chance conversations that, over time, can amount to a serious relationship. One of the hazards of the modern digital workplace environment is that without being near each other, we miss out on a lot of random unnecessary social exchange, and that hurts our relationship building. Similarly, companies like Pixar have successfully employed this principle by placing the bathrooms and cafeteria and the certain of their office complexes. This forces people to be physically near each other, and improves relational chemistry. Physical proximity is another accelerant: just touching someone on the shoulder or arm can increase the level of trust.

Do you remember when I talked about Cziksentmihalyi’s Flow? It is that wonderful state that occurs when our mastery of a skill is met with an appropriate level of challenge. I’m going to introduce a new topic, and then I’m going to connect it to Flow. Are you familiar with the term “presence?” It’s really popular in the New Age community. “Be present.” For the longest time, I thought, what the fuck does that mean? Fortunately, the book Click actually presented a really good definition! It’s useful to view presence on a continuum. There’s simple presence, when we are simply present in a specific location or environment. And then there’s Transformative Presence: a meaningful interaction that touches the lives of those involved in a profound manner. Transformative Presence comprises four components: intentionality, mutuality, individuality, and attentiveness. Intentionality is entering an interaction with a sense of purpose and conscious awareness, and giving the interaction our undivided attention. Mutuality involves being open and available to meet the other person where they are. Mutuality requires focusing on the aspects of trust and honesty involved in the relationship, rather than giving advice or trying to solve a problem. Individuality means being authentic and aware of our own emotional reactions. I don’t know what “being authentic” even means since it sounds like such a loaded term, so I’m going to skip that, but awareness of our own emotional reactions is something that can be developed. A few of the tools I’ve used is knowing my behavioral triggers and monitoring my body language (though maybe I’m doing it wrong). Finally, attentiveness is demonstrating care through active involvement. Actively listening, asking to elaborate, sharing our own reactions, and generally demonstrating to the other person that we’re an active participant in the interaction.

When you achieve a state of transformative presence, and combine it with a state of flow, you reach what the authors of Click term “Resonance“. Resonance = flow + transformative presence. When we’re in a state of resonance, others are more likely to enter that state as well and we are more likely to form a meaningful connection with someone. (Mirror neurons may be involved. This may also be due to emotional mirroring, which I don’t feel the authors spent enough time discussing. I know that when I feel emotionally mirrored with someone, I feel a great sense of “rapport” and “clicking”. This may be due to similar circumstances provoking parallel emotions due to shared values, which could well be classified as “similarity”, discussed next.)

Next on our accelerator list is similarity. The authors found that similarity has a long-lasting effect on the harmony of an interpersonal relationship, and moreover, it is quantity of similarities rather than quality of similarities that makes a difference. That is, it doesn’t matter whether you’re both Christian, or you both enjoy bass fishing. Each commonality could be tallied as a “point”; once you hit enough points, something occurs. It may be related to the in-group vs. out-group phenomenons.. if you’re similar enough with someone, then they could view you as part of their in-group. This could well be incorporated into my future hypothetical Evil Textbook of Awesome Manipulation Techniques. An incredible pair of studies mentioned in the book demonstrate that sharing a birthday with someone dramatically increases compliance, and sharing a name dramatically increases dollars donated when solicited for a donation.

And what the authors dub “a safe place” is the last of our listed trigger for click. When people experience joint adversity, they are more likely to form lasting bonds; authors cite the example of war heroes who experienced “action” becoming disproportionately more likely to bond. I have a bone to pick with this because I believe that warring may trigger bonding via aptic structures; for example, certain apes exhibit bonding after raiding behavior, too. But I also remember my social psychology textbook from college talking about how fraternities exploit this phenomenon via hazing, creating a shared experience of adversity amongst the pledges. Safe places invoke a cultural frame, creating an us-vs-them, in-group/out-group dichotomy, and people are more likely to bond with members of an in-group (due to similarity).

I feel like there are two major accelerators that the authors neglected. One is when people speak to our ideal self. That is, they offer compliments tailored to the way we perceive ourselves, rather than the way others perceive us. I think I discussed this in more detail in a previous blog post, but if the truest and highest vision of myself is of a great writer, and then someone comes along and says “Zack, I think you are truly an exceptional writer”, then we’re probably going to click. (Sorry, stalkers, I don’t see myself as a great writer . I guess if I revealed more about myself then you would be more likely to “click” with this post. It’s risky, though – what if you make fun of me or invalidate my dream? Anyway, I would like to be seen as a great creative and a great intellectual.

Another one I think the authors failed to mention is if the person with whom you are relating possesses great cultural (tribal) capital under the culture with which you identify. For example, I really like basketball, so I think I’m going to be more likely to click with basketball players. For example, when I was living in Chicago and I saw Joakim Noah out at Crescendo, we clicked. (It was in the way we shook hands. You know how sometimes you go to do a high-five / handshake with someone and it feels completely rhythmic, like you transition from one step of the handshake to the next without any friction or awkardness? It was like that.) It’s also the reason why people claim to have connections with attractive members of the opposite sex; they possess cultural capital. Your body wants you to bond with them, to ensure your tribal protection.

Some people are naturally better than others at clicking. These people have lots of emotional intelligence, and the authors call them “high self monitors.” They have fluid personalities; they modulate their emotional expression so they can quickly pick up on social cues, they quickly incorporate local norms. They manage others’ perceptions: in an exchange, they act deliberately to create what the other person experiences. They are the center of social networks; in an office, information will tend to pass through them. High self monitor M.B.A.s become promoted more quickly than others.

And when you assemble teams of people who click, you get greater results. When people bicker, it is about the issues rather than personal attacks. They are tribally aligned and can focus on the attainment of goals; they don’t need to argue out of insecurity. The exact reasons for this are still fuzzy to me, and I’m yet to lay down an entire cognitive model, but it’s something that intuitively, I strongly believe. It’s one reason that Paul Graham places such an emphasis on startup founders that get along with each other. By clicking, you eliminate a layer of friction that is present in most relationships.

For me, the book also prompts reflections on the value of organized religion, which I’m no longer as eager to dismiss as I was when I was younger. I’m also eager to incorporate ideas on transformative presence into my project CompassionPit. Anyway…

When at the end of this year I compile my list of my favorite books I read this year, Click is definitely going to be on it. You can get it from Amazon for only $11.20 (I actually got it for $9.99, because I read it on my Kindle 3).

Update 11/29/2010: Jay Denhart relates the phenomenon of “clicking” to people and brands.

Since you have been asking, here is an AwesomenessReminders referral code

ZBURTBLOG

I wonder whether it would be more appropriate for me to keep my journaling private or for me to publish it on a public forum such as this blog. The upside is that it’s more fun to blog and it exposes me to feedback, the downside is that I am probably going to be less honest [not share ALL information or choose which information to share, i do not intend to use my blog to lie and actually try to minimize lieing in my every day life (probably to my detriment, i think lieing causes stress so its just Easier to avoid it but maybe it would be better to Man Up, but maybe not - maybe theres a framework out there that justifies being honest but i mean you always have to choose what information to reveal and truths especially truths about self are so vague and elusive and difficult to articulate so...)], or my brain may subtly engineer the information revealed for some sub conscious purpose. Another downside is by publicly revealing my goals I may be less likely to achieve them!

Regardless it’s more fun to blog publicly so I’m going to do that!

I am continuing my basketball practice, my friend and occasional ZacharyBurt.com commenter Matthew Swann refers to the basketball court as the dojo. I think this is great because it helps separate practice from results. Some weaknesses in my game.

If I am forced to Go Left, I will often fail under pressure when in the post. I think the proper method of practicing this will be to play some more 1 on 1, and force myself to go left whenever possible. This may mean I have to sacrifice some “wins” but hopefully it will be worth it in the long run.

Another thing I have problems with is feeling tired and exhausted, and then my resources shut down. The court “constricts”, I feel “forced” by my opponent to take BAD shots even though the opponent is not technically forcing me, it’s like a mental thing. But I do not know what’s going on. This may be analogous to the way stress affects my brain , restricting my ability to act polite and kind and with proper foresight, to be creative; the world constricts on me. Maybe it weakens my pre frontal cortex?  so I do not know what to do when i get in that state. I will have to continue to observe how I can emerge.

I know the secret of how to neutralize an opponent when he’s on a hot streak (read the inner game of tennis review post for info on that) but I do not know how to force myself to get in a brain state of confidence when I’m not. I’ll explain. i feel like there is a sixth sense that people don’t talk about, and that is our sense of prediction w/r/t skill execution. this is that Feeling in your body. for example, basketball for me is very visceral, i feel differently when i’m “hot” and it feels like the skill neurons are being activated. literally, the way the rim of the hoop APPEARS IN MY BRAIN  changes… it looks different. (statistical studies disagree with this but they may be ignoring black swans). anyway, when i feel i am going to make it i often make it, and when i feel i am going to miss i almost always miss (perhaps 90% of the time).  yet sometimes when i feel i am going to miss i will shoot anyway. i wonder if there is a way to jump-start my brain into not thinking i’m going to miss. what i usually resort to is just trying something random and praying it works, kind of like  a hail mary, but i do not think that is a very good strategy. maybe i could try to jump start the “feeling” of rhythm in my body. play some rap songs in my head…? think of rajon rondo or d rose? i’ll try that next time. (i do not think it is a mere coincidence that “black” sports and “black” music, and rhythm, and skill seem to have a complex relationship. mr swann has a more refined understanding of this more than i do, but clearly julian jaynes’ origin of consciousness holds some answers. )

one last thing is i have changed my relationship to free throws. i used to think of a free throw as performing a free throw. now i think of it as Free throw, so i have to adjust my mind and body until the shot FEELS right.

i need to better understand my relationship to “balance”, when i am mentally balanced it is easier to perform, some people may call this “finding your center” but i definitely dont understand that yet and there’s a lot of ambiguity in my both visceral and abstract comprehension. also i am curious about “balance” in regards to the conversation in my head. i feel like properly Framing the mental argument..conversation can affect my skill execution. also, the presence of other people shapes the mental conversation

another thing i continue to wonder about is the relationship between skill execution and social pressure (p.s. stress too, social brain function areas? what?), for example, i notice sometimes when there are other people in the room my body language will orient accordingly. this is a very important topic because:

1) orienting your body language to someone else can be Beta

2) being Alpha changes your Dopamine levels

3) Dopamine levels affect your Focus

4) Focus affects your skill execution

i don’t understand the relationship between these 4 factors and i don’t pretend to. i just continue my exploration in the hopes that someone more advanced than me can enlighten me. i know the answers are out there and probably somebody has clearly defined the relationship between these 4 things, built a cohesive comprehensive framework, and MORE IMPORTANTLY has distilled it into practical steps for enhancement of life. of course not everyone can be “winners” so perhaps they are keeping the information private but I soldier on in my own private attempts to understand. to the illuminati et al, please don’t kill me.

yours,

zack

p.s. telepathy schizophrenia efficiency – my album title!!!   (? nah i dont understand fully) not YET

long time no update. i’ve been busy with a lot of things. i will update y’all when there is some progress. i don’t want to commit to anything up front since i remember reading a study or two that showed that sharing your commitments with other people makes you LESS likely to achieve them, since you already get the “Reward”  & social validation of having completed them, even if you are only beginning.

onward.

some of you may know that i enjoy gambling. it’s very rewarding because it makes watching sports more interesting and enjoyable, and also it activates the reward centers in the nucleus accumbens. i was recently given access to the new google prediction api, which is basically “machine learning as a service”, and i am going to start using this blog to keep people updated about my progress.

i have a github repository at https://github.com/zackster/Vegas where i’ll put my code. the first step will be to try to get the machine learning to work for a very simple training data set. this has caused me some difficulties which may be due to having foreign characters in my training data.

in the mean time i am doing some sports betting at centsports.com, which is a free ad-powered betting site that lets you start with 10c and work your way up. i am going to take note of my losses and see why they occurred. my guess is it’s because of some variable i failed to account for. i am going to keep track of these variables on the wiki page of the github project.

mostly i watch basketball, because that’s my sport, but if this thing ever becomes useful then i will try to apply it to other domains.

in the mean time, does anyone know where i can get a good data set? seems like scraping espn is an option but one i’d like to avoid just because it’s more work

also, if you are interested in this and want to join me, i welcome help! or just sit on the sidelines