Why?
He treats emotion like it's logic and reason by taking emotional freaks and saying you should do the opposite emotion instead of deducing outcomes like everyone else. His books are pure cope
wouldn't it help tho instead of being impulsive n angry?
Social intelligence is built through repeated interaction building intution. It's like thinking you'll know how to play chess by reading a book on chess instead of playing chess
books/courses do help learning positional concepts unless you have a coach. without that you will just move pieces around trying to find patterns.
I found that books and courses never improved me in chess past basic strategy
that one is bullshit I'm asking about laws of human nature
irlewanger333then what do you recommend instead to become socially intelligent for the one's who start with a deficit?
There's nothing that you can do past planning activities and maintaining a schedule of planned interactions
elaborate with an example
Ask a person that you do superordinate goals with often (e.g a coworker) if they would like to do x at y time/interval (depending on the level of connection but this isnt too important). The worst that happens is that they say no
what superordinate goals can a teen do? that will be best to build social skills
Things that are joined by formality (chess club, religious study, book club, [sport] club)
I think your wrong here, I don't like Greene's work either, but I don't think his mindset is purely off. Human emotions have rules and are logical to some degree, well the emotions aren't logical themselves, but rather the mechanisms behind them are, you can sort of understand why a person behave or feel the way they do through logic and utilize that input to obtain a certain outcome.
You would need to input your actions and receive immediate feedback and explanation to learn from theory for a means which is too complex to calculate all outputs with complex reasons. I believe the only way this is possible is through in-person training. Also, there is not definite and objective desire for all humans. Each person has their own motives. This makes it impossible to make an objective framework of human interaction for most common day-to-day interaction
Yes, I agree that objectively understanding everything from a mechanistic standpoint doesn't matter without in-person training, but think about it... We already have behavioral psychology, and we already had millions of people that came before us studying the exact same thing, while you should indeed practice, there's no harm in trying to find logic and patterns in human behavior and trying to make a benefit out of that, and thankfully there's a whole field of study and books written by people with much more knowledge and developed intuition than us.
I can't say I've read a lot of books on human interactions, probably 3-4, but deliberately trying to apply that theoretical knowledge is what gave me the best results with people, in literally going out with a notebook and checklist and forcing myself to try and apply something with anyone I could
can you tell me more about what you did
