I'd lump this in with so much other inspirational advice (e.g. "Dance like nobody is watching! Love like you've never been hurt!") that is well-intended but hugely impractical.

I think there are finely-tuned social algorithms that we innately follow. For example when meeting somebody we often perform the progressive self-disclosure algorithm in an attempt to find mutual talking points, so maybe yeah you say that you're into drinking IPAs or some other stereotypical thing, that's great.

The reason such a protocol is highly effective is you want to establish somebody's feelings about you before disclosing a huge amount.

Yeah, so much of in-person interaction is attempting to suss out the size and orientation of the personal Overton windows of your counterparts so that you can both find the overlap and take a peek through to the other side without sticking your whole head in and having to hear and smell the sights too. Walking around "with the shutters open" can speedrun things a bit, but it isn't practical in many contexts (work, community events, etc) or for people who have a public image. The whole point of smalltalk is to avoid being pulled into public largetalk, not because people are incapable or have no ideas about larger things.

People say things like this but I remember a time when there was a lot more "acceptable" eccentricity. I'm only in my late 40s so it wasn't too long ago.

The article misses the other half of being interesting: being interested. If you're not able to find your counterpart interesting, they'll find you boring.

My wife and I live above a bar frequented by tourists and the bartender is a friend of mine. When it isn’t busy, I’ll usually go down there order a soda and just talk to whoever shows up. The easy opener once the conversation starts is “what keeps you busy?” and keep the conversation going. This lets them talk about work, family, hobbies or whatever else they like to talk about

I read a book that said you should try something new to you at least every quarter if not more often. It gives you something to talk about.

While my wife and I are empty nesters and at point where we travel a lot and we do the digital nomad thing in spurts so we can always talk about travel or more often ask “what’s the most interesting place you’ve been to”/“What’s interesting about where you live” etc, it doesn’t have to be travel.

And just to be clear, it’s always either guys I am striking a conversation with or couples. There is no way for a 50 year old married guy to talk to a woman alone at the bar without coming off like a creep.

On the other hand, I try not to talk about politics or religion. What’s the point?

Not to mention that humans seem to have a fixed (yet variable, compared to the entire population) amount of energy they're each able to spend. Sometimes very interesting people gatekeep their authenticity to protect and preserve what they have to offer others, especially to strangers, coworkers, clients, even family.

I think the general message of bravery in authenticity is very important on a personal level, and incredibly subjective with regards to anybody external.

When a vampire knocks on your door, do you always invite them in?

> I think there are finely-tuned social algorithms that we innately follow.

That would explain why I can’t do small talk, those are not innate to everyone.

Do you think that the people who dance like no one is watching or who love like they’ve never been hurt are on average happier or unhappier than the average person? Are they happier or unhappier than the people who dance like everyone is watching or who love like they’ve always been hurt?

When you put it that way; I guess after some reflection, I realize my algorithm is optimized for efficiency and I immediately try to hone in on strong agreements or disagreements in taste/politics/etc. so that I don't waste my time getting to know a shitty person, or miss out on a potential best friend.

These means engaging in a level of provocative speech/behavior that sometimes makes people uncomfortable (not my problem of course; I have little interest in euphemism or politeness, my energy goes toward transparency and kindness)

Progressive self-disclosure can have its uses but if I can't break the ice in two minutes with a stranger, it's not a good sign for our compatibility.

Now, I did grow up in an environment where I was never really allowed to exist. I am an atheist raised by an hyper-abusive, hyper-religious, ex-boxer Catholic deacon in an extremely conservative part of the United States. The police were at my house every couple of weeks. So this may have influenced my comfort with radical transparency; I had to learn at a young age to literally fight constantly for my right to think my own way, and I'm ready to do that at any time.

But I have definitely been in some neighborhoods where the most interaction you should have with a stranger is a nod of the head, anything more is asking for trouble no matter who you are. I can vouch that there are harsh urban environments which prevent, by design, even progressive disclosure from being a safe option. This effectively kills any chance at real unity in the community, and drives up crime statistics, further justifying the continued disunification tactics.

It would be cool to catalog, categorize and analyze these kinds of social algorithms. It seems like an interesting cross-disciplinary field, involving psychology, sociology, game theory, cultural anthropology, etc.