Two Paradigms of Social Skills

[Valach]

Disclaimer: I have used chatGPT to refine this post as I am not a native speaker and sometimes I struggle with formulating my ideas - so I wrote it down mostly in czech (my native language) and told it to translate and structure the text better - but all the ideas are my own. Hope that does not violate the rules of the forum.

I've been thinking about social skills lately, and I've come to believe that what people call "social skills" actually refers to two fundamentally different paradigms. Externally they can look almost identical—both people may appear charismatic, confident and socially competent—but internally they operate from completely different places.

The first paradigm is what most of us are taught. The goal is simple: learn what works. You observe what people respond well to, notice what creates attraction, admiration or approval, and then cultivate those behaviours. You become more charismatic because charisma is attractive. You become more confident because confidence gets better reactions. You stop being needy because you've learned that neediness pushes people away. The whole process is essentially reverse engineering human behaviour.

The metric of success is external: Do people like me? Am I attractive? Am I respected? Can I get dates? Can I make friends more easily?

This isn't limited to pickup. I think much of mainstream advice on confidence, networking, leadership and even parts of the self-development industry operate from this framework. The intention may not consciously be to please people—in fact, many communities explicitly teach people not to be people pleasers—but I think it often becomes a more sophisticated form of people pleasing.

For example, someone stops being agreeable because they've learned that being disagreeable is more attractive. Someone teases because teasing creates attraction. Someone becomes mysterious because mystery creates intrigue. Externally this no longer resembles traditional people pleasing, but internally the reference point is still other people. Behaviour is continually adjusted according to what receives the best response. Approval hasn't disappeared—it has simply become more sophisticated.

I think this approach can produce impressive results. People genuinely become more socially effective and attractive. However, I also think there is a hidden cost. The question quietly shifts from "What do I genuinely feel?" to "What version of myself produces the best outcome?" Over time, it can become almost impossible to distinguish authentic expression from optimized expression.

Someone may sincerely believe they are authentic because the behaviour has become habitual, yet underneath there is still an implicit belief: "Who I naturally am isn't enough." The original insecurity never disappears—it simply receives a highly competent spokesperson. The wounded inner child remains hidden behind a confident adult persona.

The second paradigm starts from a completely different premise. The goal is no longer to produce a particular reaction in other people. The goal is to remain deeply connected to yourself while interacting with them.

Instead of asking "How should I behave?", you ask "What is actually true for me right now?"

Sometimes that truth is attractive. Sometimes it isn't. Maybe you're nervous on a first date. Maybe you're feeling insecure, sad, excited or awkward. Authenticity means allowing those experiences to exist without immediately editing them into something more socially desirable.

I'm not talking about emotional dumping or ignoring social awareness. Rather, I mean that your expression is guided primarily by your relationship with yourself instead of your attempt to control someone else's perception. The interaction becomes an expression of yourself rather than a performance designed to achieve an outcome.

I think most people—including myself for many years—avoid this. Not because we're dishonest, but because we're afraid. Deep down many of us carry the belief that who we fundamentally are isn't enough. If I show the real me, they won't want me. They won't respect me. They'll reject me.

So we unconsciously create a safer strategy. We become funnier, more confident, more charismatic, more emotionally intelligent, more successful. None of these developments are bad in themselves. The question is why we're developing them.

Are they expressions of becoming more fully ourselves, or are they attempts to become someone we believe other people will finally accept?

To me, that's the crucial distinction.

If people reject the version of me I've carefully constructed, I can always tell myself they rejected the performance. But if I express myself truthfully and I'm still rejected, that feels much more vulnerable because now it feels like I was rejected. I think that's one of the biggest reasons authenticity is so difficult.

The two paradigms therefore define success very differently.

The first asks: Did they like me?

The second asks: Did I stay connected to myself?

Ironically, the second paradigm may sometimes produce worse immediate outcomes. People might like you less. You might receive fewer dates. You might be less socially polished. But something else develops: you stop abandoning yourself in order to gain connection.

Perhaps the deepest social skill isn't learning how to make people like you.

Perhaps it's remaining connected to yourself regardless of whether they do.

I'd be curious what others think. Do you see these as genuinely different paradigms, or do you think they're ultimately compatible?

 

[Miguel1]

My recent 10 pages opening up thread was basically about this.

If I choose to be fully aligned with myself, my social results drop dramatically. But at least I leave whatever small chance open of finding that few people that I align with deeply and build long-lasting fulfilling relationships with.

At the same time, going the other extreme is not good either as it would be too fake and gimmicky, losing all authenticity and genuine raw charisma, letting go and confidence.

The middle path is best for max results.

[Ulax]

Its better to do what works until you get good at fundamentals, then tweak from there.

[Valach]

16 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

My recent 10 pages opening up thread was basically about this.

If I choose to be fully aligned with myself, my social results drop dramatically. But at least I leave whatever small chance open of finding that few people that I align with deeply and build long-lasting fulfilling relationships with.

At the same time, going the other extreme is not good either as it would be too fake and gimmicky, losing all authenticity and genuine raw charisma, letting go and confidence.

The middle path is best for max results.

I agree that a middle path will probably maximise social results.

My question is whether maximising social results should always be the objective.

If expressing something that is genuinely true for me causes someone to like me less, I'm becoming less convinced that's necessarily a bad outcome. It may simply reveal incompatibility rather than represent a failure of social skills.

In other words, I think authenticity changes the optimisation target. Instead of optimising for being liked by as many people as possible, you're optimising for expressing yourself honestly and seeing who naturally resonates with that.

Not to mention it is just so much more fulfilling for your own soul.

[Valach]

16 hours ago, Ulax said:

Its better to do what works until you get good at fundamentals, then tweak from there.

That's actually where I think my perspective differs.

Learning fundamentals like listening well, communicating clearly or respecting boundaries obviously makes sense.

What I'm questioning is learning to optimise your behaviour primarily around what gets the best reactions from other people.

My concern is that if the underlying motivation is "How do I get people to like me?" then repeatedly practising that may strengthen the habit of looking outside yourself for validation.

From my perspective, authenticity isn't something you add after mastering performance. It's a different way of relating to people altogether.

[Miguel1]

28 minutes ago, Valach said:

I agree that a middle path will probably maximise social results.

My question is whether maximising social results should always be the objective.

If expressing something that is genuinely true for me causes someone to like me less, I'm becoming less convinced that's necessarily a bad outcome. It may simply reveal incompatibility rather than represent a failure of social skills.

In other words, I think authenticity changes the optimisation target. Instead of optimising for being liked by as many people as possible, you're optimising for expressing yourself honestly and seeing who naturally resonates with that.

Not to mention it is just so much more fulfilling for your own soul.

It’s not so black and white. Yes, in theory it is more fulfilling. But see, when nobody resonates with you deeply and you are left alone for years, it might become a serious problem really fast, as we are social animals.

This works if you are a normie but if you are serious into the work we do here, you alienate 99%+ of people you meet randomly, if you were fully authentic and honest about that.

Edited 1 hour ago by Miguel1

[Valach]

1 minute ago, Miguel1 said:

It’s not so black and white. Yes, in theory it is more fulfilling. But see, when nobody resonates with you deeply and you are left alone for years, it might become a serious problem really fast, as we are social animals.

Could be. I have not lived it for so long to talk about it. But even now I have couple of friends who resonate with who I am so I am okay in this regard. Finding a partner is going to be different task though, lets see

[Miguel1]

@Valach When you truly become a mirror for people’s inner demons, lies and deceptions, they run very fast.

[Valach]

8 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

@Valach When you truly become a mirror for people’s inner demons, lies and deceptions, they run very fast.

Most of them, yes. Obviously most of my friends are also only the people who are interested in this kind of work.

 But I have friends who are "normal". Like recently I started to hang out with my gym trainer. But I do not hide from him who I am - I try to present in a way that is digestible for him but I do not think that is me being inauthentic.

Also I do not understand the part about becoming mirror - could you expand on that? @Miguel1 I do not think being authetic means that I go around telling people some insights or telling them how I view their inner worlds. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Valach

[Miguel1]

@Valach What do you think deep emotional connection and intimacy means?

[Valach]

4 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

@Valach What do you think deep emotional connection and intimacy means?

Absolute vulnerability to me. It is the lack of controlling. 

[Joseph Maynor]

9 minutes ago, Valach said:

Absolute vulnerability to me. It is the lack of controlling. 

Exactly.  

[Miguel1]

14 minutes ago, Valach said:

Absolute vulnerability to me. It is the lack of controlling. 

Depending on your consciousness level and how much lies, biases and deceptions you see, your absolute vulnerability will expose those in others you are intimate with.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

Depending on your consciousness level and how much lies, biases and deceptions you see, your absolute vulnerability will expose those in others you are intimate with.

To the extent we can meet someone face to face, yes.  Otherwise, it is just an abstraction.  

[Valach]

3 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

Depending on your consciousness level and how much lies, biases and deceptions you see, your absolute vulnerability will expose those in others you are intimate with.

Agreed. But then why do we want someone who is not capable of being intimate with us?