I can't get the article at the moment, but will comment that not everyone has equal experience or comfort with face-to-face communication, what Stephen Porges calls the "social engagement mechanism". Some people can feel intimidated by the gaze of others.
The foundation of American improv theater came out of socializing games developed by Neva Boyd at Hull House in Chicago and her student Viola Spolin, published in Spolin's book, Improvisation for the Theater. These games rely on attuning to the faces of others and what they say and do. One's spontaneous, untutored reactions are the source of creativity and fun.
I will testify here that the social engagement practices in improv games have done more for me in being able to spontaneously respond and connect with others than decades of (otherwise valuable) therapy and growth practices.
Computer Science majors at Northeastern University had a required theater class called "The Eloquent Presenter" when I was there that largely consisted of improv games.
Some students dreaded it, but my cohort was largely fun and very low anxiety compared to the other required courses.
There was one exercise in particular that broke people, sometimes to tears. The class sat along the wall with the professor sitting at the far end from a door that the student being examined would enter through. That student would walk toward the center of the room, stop, and present themselves to the class, "Hi my name is X". The professor would then critique the subtle mannerisms of the person - their walk was too hasty, they spoke too quietly, they shuffled their feet, etc. The student then walked back out the door and repeated the exercise, until the professor approved their performance.
Some students repeated the introduction a dozen or more times (a few cried at this point), some passed on the first attempt.
I remember many of my classmates hating this process, but the more I reflect the more I believe it was genius to make us experience that extreme social awkwardness. Real life, and I believe real success, exists in the interactions between ourselves and others.
For a time, I was into boxing.
Nothing ever helped me with stage nerves or social encounters like realizing people had watched me get punched in the face and it was fine.
I believe these are called threat acclimation experiences. They are probably super valuable. I should do more.
These are excellent notes for neurotypical people, particularly those who are extrovert or can mask / fake it without undue cost :)
Addendum rather than correction - neurodivergent and or introvert behaviour may differ - I'm AuDHD and e.g. "body language breaking rapport" doesn't mean I'm no longer interested and neither does "shifting eyes" -- that's my default behaviour which takes extreme amount of unsustainable energy to break for short targeted periods of time -- if my body language are engaged and I'm looking in your eyes, I'm probably not hearing what you're saying as all my CPU cycles are peak multithreading to control my body :).
I think the list is like PMP - read, then evaluate customize and implement portions as feasible for your specific situation.
It's good to hear I'm not the only one with the eye contact thing — I also noticed about myself that if I'm looking in another person's eyes, it means their words aren't really registering in my head.
This also came up when trying EMDR in a mental health setting, where you're supposed to follow the therapist's pointer with your eyes while thinking about past events. I found that I couldn't think about anything else except making sure my eyes were following the pointer; directing my gaze took up all the available mental bandwidth.
Hi, I'm the author. I'm still using my same webhost from 2001 and this is really the impetus to get new hosting! This is the third time liamrosen.com has made the Hacker News front page (for very different things) and each time my hosting has gone down.
And now the Internet Archive is down, too. (edit: IA is back up!)
it's funny that this came up on HN only an hour after I finished writing about Oscar Wilde's advice from the late 19th century. It is hard to two such lists being more different, in fact they are only similar in that they are numbered and that they are advice, really. Just a funny coincidence and interesting to compare and contrast. Maybe you'll enjoy Wilde's rules as well.
Gem of a blog for me personally. This is the rare signal amongst the noise for me on HN. Went through a bunch of his other articles and realized his brain and way of thinking works in a similar way as mine but a bit different and further "ahead" in ways I'd like to be, which is supremely useful and entertaining and satisfying.
I’m genuinely happy you had this experience. I also keep coming back here because although maybe 10% of content rises above that bar, nowhere else does at all anymore.
2010 Reddit was like this, to the point I’d feel I was incurring an opportunity cost if I didn’t read it. Today it’s a sewage pile.
Rules about social interaction are often too general to be really useful to me, but I found this one insightful:
> If making references that are outside someone’s context, do so only if they signal themselves as a curious person, and make them come from a place of genuine interest in informing, rather than bragging.
This is something I struggle with when talking to new people. How much to lean towards introducing them to things they don't know but may find interesting versus not wanting them to feel like an outsider or dumb by bringing up stuff they don't know.
Paying attention to how they signal their curiosity and sense of safety is a good way to gauge that.
Mostly people just want to talk, at least initially, I've found you are much more likely to make connections with people by asking them questions than trying to introduce them to things. That can come later.
edit: by talk maybe i mean "speak" but I don't mean it to sound quite so harsh/jaded.. Just how most people seem to work until you know them better.
#20 indicates "breaking rapport with body language" which I interpreted as looking away, shifty, crossing arms, standing at angle, fidgeting, and other behaviours neurotypicals may construe or indicate as not paying attention. In other bullet points, I think it broadly means non-paralelizing or non-matching behaviour - different energy levels, volume, disagreements, different humour vs seriousness levels, etc.
See my root-level comment about potentially different behaviour and semantics for neurodivergent :).
I take it to mean upsetting the flow of conversation.
For example, suppose you're at a party, talking in depth about a football team's season and they say something unrelated like "Oh by the way have you seen John?". It is usually a polite way to try to wrap up a conversation. A polite response would be something that graciously gives them permission to change the subject or leave, for example, "I think I saw him outside, maybe go take a look?".
Sometimes it takes the form of bored body language and sentences that don't lead the conversation onwards, e.g. "Yeah that's crazy" or "Well, what can you do...". In that scenario I like to give the conversation a respectable death, e.g. "Well, all we can do is hope for a better season in 2027!".
I take it to mean that non-verbal language like either turning toward or turning away indicates whether the person likes you and wants to be in your presence. If you have a signal that you've built rapport don't screw it up by breaking that trust.
By rapport, I believe the author means non-verbal cues that the other person is interested.
Some cues include the person physically squaring up to you front to front instead of being at an angle to you. Another cue could be touching you on the shoulder or forearm. For me the most obvious tell is that they are laughing or giggling.
Breaking rapport means the other person wants to disengage without offending you. I usually make the excuse I need to take a breather.
i'll give it a shot: you and i meet and start to talk about the weather, then slowly get to some personal questions, and i mention that i prefer quieter places when talking to people.
later, when going out with friends, if i ask "where should we go to talk", and you suggest someplace obviously loud and not great for conversation, this could be seen as a mild form of misunderstanding something i communicated previously about a personal preference in a given situation: breaking rapport
I interpret 'breaking rapport' as doing something that makes the other person feel less connected to you. For example, bluntly contradicting them, dismissing something they said, teasing them when they are not comfortable with it, looking away while they are talking, or turning your attention to your phone. Anything that shifts the interaction from "we are connecting" to "there is distance between us."
Less connected is good. Also making the other person feel more awkward or uncomfortable with the interaction.
I suspect most people desperately trying to hang on to it, except with those they are good friends with. Unless they want out of a conversation. Although i may be projecting here.
It means to disagree in a playful, teasing and confident way. You can even take it to an absurd level: "I like your dress except I hate the color blue."
Many tech folks I work with fall into the trap in #31 and try to lecture people too often. From what I've been told, the "professor" style is a typical ASD trait. Very interesting.
For neurodivergent types like me: it helps to frame this more like a game with "points." All of the tips in this list are great, but it can be hard if you treat it more like "rules of order" more than "rules of the game." You can effectively systematize your approach to socialization (the only hard rule is to not be robotic about it—it's okay to laugh and play with people; that's a relatively uncommon experience).
I also make a point to make it 100% about them. Don't worry about being perceived the wrong way, saying the wrong thing, etc. That's part of being human. If you fuck up, you fuck up. Realizing that more or less removed any anxiety I had around talking to people (especially when I'd rather be behind a keyboard).
Edit: people are like spiders; they're more afraid of you than you are of them.
I've encountered many Romanians where I live (in all walks of society). I used to always point out I'd seen the movie (Mihai Viteazul).[1]
It never built any kind of connection with them.
Years later, I found out that most Romanians outside of Romania either hate their country, or at least have enough bad memories they want to forget it. For good reason! Bringing up this movie was not a point of connection.
[1] I've not found any proof, but I will swear that Braveheart is just a copy of this movie, adapted to Scotland.
Hard disagree on number 4. Open-ended questions that facilitate conversation are ideal. (They are an art form in themselves.) Since we're being analytical, you need a scaffold for the conversation, and questions are a better way to build it.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting "early on." I guess their point holds for the first 500 words or so.
What? I'd really like to know what you mean by both of these sentences.
>Very neurotypical coded article.
Does this mean that this article doesn't cater to those who are neurodivergent? It almost seems like this would be most valuable to those who aren't well equipped in social situations, like many neurodivergent people.
Are you referring to the way it is written? The subject matter? The specific recommendations?
>Many of these points are rather harsh and invalid.
I can kind of get invalid (I think it's best to assume each of these requires nuance and aren't universal rules you can blindly follow), but what about any of these are harsh?
I think it's that the comment author thinks these are mainly cheat codes for interacting with neuro-typical ppl, but maybe not good for others.
I feel that they are perhaps overgeneralizing their own neuro-atypical mental models to all neuro-atypical people, but at the very least I take it as "I am not neurotypical and I don't want anyone following these rules when interacting with me" :)
I can't get the article at the moment, but will comment that not everyone has equal experience or comfort with face-to-face communication, what Stephen Porges calls the "social engagement mechanism". Some people can feel intimidated by the gaze of others.
The foundation of American improv theater came out of socializing games developed by Neva Boyd at Hull House in Chicago and her student Viola Spolin, published in Spolin's book, Improvisation for the Theater. These games rely on attuning to the faces of others and what they say and do. One's spontaneous, untutored reactions are the source of creativity and fun.
I will testify here that the social engagement practices in improv games have done more for me in being able to spontaneously respond and connect with others than decades of (otherwise valuable) therapy and growth practices.
Thanks for sharing this insight!
Computer Science majors at Northeastern University had a required theater class called "The Eloquent Presenter" when I was there that largely consisted of improv games. Some students dreaded it, but my cohort was largely fun and very low anxiety compared to the other required courses.
There was one exercise in particular that broke people, sometimes to tears. The class sat along the wall with the professor sitting at the far end from a door that the student being examined would enter through. That student would walk toward the center of the room, stop, and present themselves to the class, "Hi my name is X". The professor would then critique the subtle mannerisms of the person - their walk was too hasty, they spoke too quietly, they shuffled their feet, etc. The student then walked back out the door and repeated the exercise, until the professor approved their performance.
Some students repeated the introduction a dozen or more times (a few cried at this point), some passed on the first attempt.
I remember many of my classmates hating this process, but the more I reflect the more I believe it was genius to make us experience that extreme social awkwardness. Real life, and I believe real success, exists in the interactions between ourselves and others.
For a time, I was into boxing. Nothing ever helped me with stage nerves or social encounters like realizing people had watched me get punched in the face and it was fine.
I believe these are called threat acclimation experiences. They are probably super valuable. I should do more.
These are excellent notes for neurotypical people, particularly those who are extrovert or can mask / fake it without undue cost :)
Addendum rather than correction - neurodivergent and or introvert behaviour may differ - I'm AuDHD and e.g. "body language breaking rapport" doesn't mean I'm no longer interested and neither does "shifting eyes" -- that's my default behaviour which takes extreme amount of unsustainable energy to break for short targeted periods of time -- if my body language are engaged and I'm looking in your eyes, I'm probably not hearing what you're saying as all my CPU cycles are peak multithreading to control my body :).
I think the list is like PMP - read, then evaluate customize and implement portions as feasible for your specific situation.
It's good to hear I'm not the only one with the eye contact thing — I also noticed about myself that if I'm looking in another person's eyes, it means their words aren't really registering in my head.
This also came up when trying EMDR in a mental health setting, where you're supposed to follow the therapist's pointer with your eyes while thinking about past events. I found that I couldn't think about anything else except making sure my eyes were following the pointer; directing my gaze took up all the available mental bandwidth.
Hi, I'm the author. I'm still using my same webhost from 2001 and this is really the impetus to get new hosting! This is the third time liamrosen.com has made the Hacker News front page (for very different things) and each time my hosting has gone down.
And now the Internet Archive is down, too. (edit: IA is back up!)
Well, here are the rules in tweet form: https://x.com/Liface/status/1947973950065066037
it's funny that this came up on HN only an hour after I finished writing about Oscar Wilde's advice from the late 19th century. It is hard to two such lists being more different, in fact they are only similar in that they are numbered and that they are advice, really. Just a funny coincidence and interesting to compare and contrast. Maybe you'll enjoy Wilde's rules as well.
https://coldewey.cc/2026/08/on-oscar-wildes-phrases-and-phil...
Why is that; is the blog database-dacked?
I liked the book "Difficult Conversations" from some smart harvard folks.
expanded my conversational awareness.
(That said, it is hard to do in a heated conversation, so you actually have to practice and have the main ideas of the book committed to memory.)
Gem of a blog for me personally. This is the rare signal amongst the noise for me on HN. Went through a bunch of his other articles and realized his brain and way of thinking works in a similar way as mine but a bit different and further "ahead" in ways I'd like to be, which is supremely useful and entertaining and satisfying.
I’m genuinely happy you had this experience. I also keep coming back here because although maybe 10% of content rises above that bar, nowhere else does at all anymore.
2010 Reddit was like this, to the point I’d feel I was incurring an opportunity cost if I didn’t read it. Today it’s a sewage pile.
Rules about social interaction are often too general to be really useful to me, but I found this one insightful:
> If making references that are outside someone’s context, do so only if they signal themselves as a curious person, and make them come from a place of genuine interest in informing, rather than bragging.
This is something I struggle with when talking to new people. How much to lean towards introducing them to things they don't know but may find interesting versus not wanting them to feel like an outsider or dumb by bringing up stuff they don't know.
Paying attention to how they signal their curiosity and sense of safety is a good way to gauge that.
Mostly people just want to talk, at least initially, I've found you are much more likely to make connections with people by asking them questions than trying to introduce them to things. That can come later.
edit: by talk maybe i mean "speak" but I don't mean it to sound quite so harsh/jaded.. Just how most people seem to work until you know them better.
Thanks to whoever provided the archive link. I guess the server wasn't quite socially extroverted enough for all of HN's connections.
HTTP is super extra.
They mention 'breaking rapport' a few times. I'd really appreciate if someone could explain to an ASD person what that looks like. Genuine question
#20 indicates "breaking rapport with body language" which I interpreted as looking away, shifty, crossing arms, standing at angle, fidgeting, and other behaviours neurotypicals may construe or indicate as not paying attention. In other bullet points, I think it broadly means non-paralelizing or non-matching behaviour - different energy levels, volume, disagreements, different humour vs seriousness levels, etc.
See my root-level comment about potentially different behaviour and semantics for neurodivergent :).
I take it to mean upsetting the flow of conversation.
For example, suppose you're at a party, talking in depth about a football team's season and they say something unrelated like "Oh by the way have you seen John?". It is usually a polite way to try to wrap up a conversation. A polite response would be something that graciously gives them permission to change the subject or leave, for example, "I think I saw him outside, maybe go take a look?".
Sometimes it takes the form of bored body language and sentences that don't lead the conversation onwards, e.g. "Yeah that's crazy" or "Well, what can you do...". In that scenario I like to give the conversation a respectable death, e.g. "Well, all we can do is hope for a better season in 2027!".
I take it to mean that non-verbal language like either turning toward or turning away indicates whether the person likes you and wants to be in your presence. If you have a signal that you've built rapport don't screw it up by breaking that trust.
By rapport, I believe the author means non-verbal cues that the other person is interested.
Some cues include the person physically squaring up to you front to front instead of being at an angle to you. Another cue could be touching you on the shoulder or forearm. For me the most obvious tell is that they are laughing or giggling.
Breaking rapport means the other person wants to disengage without offending you. I usually make the excuse I need to take a breather.
i'll give it a shot: you and i meet and start to talk about the weather, then slowly get to some personal questions, and i mention that i prefer quieter places when talking to people.
later, when going out with friends, if i ask "where should we go to talk", and you suggest someplace obviously loud and not great for conversation, this could be seen as a mild form of misunderstanding something i communicated previously about a personal preference in a given situation: breaking rapport
I interpret 'breaking rapport' as doing something that makes the other person feel less connected to you. For example, bluntly contradicting them, dismissing something they said, teasing them when they are not comfortable with it, looking away while they are talking, or turning your attention to your phone. Anything that shifts the interaction from "we are connecting" to "there is distance between us."
Less connected is good. Also making the other person feel more awkward or uncomfortable with the interaction.
I suspect most people desperately trying to hang on to it, except with those they are good friends with. Unless they want out of a conversation. Although i may be projecting here.
It means to disagree in a playful, teasing and confident way. You can even take it to an absurd level: "I like your dress except I hate the color blue."
Many tech folks I work with fall into the trap in #31 and try to lecture people too often. From what I've been told, the "professor" style is a typical ASD trait. Very interesting.
For neurodivergent types like me: it helps to frame this more like a game with "points." All of the tips in this list are great, but it can be hard if you treat it more like "rules of order" more than "rules of the game." You can effectively systematize your approach to socialization (the only hard rule is to not be robotic about it—it's okay to laugh and play with people; that's a relatively uncommon experience).
I also make a point to make it 100% about them. Don't worry about being perceived the wrong way, saying the wrong thing, etc. That's part of being human. If you fuck up, you fuck up. Realizing that more or less removed any anxiety I had around talking to people (especially when I'd rather be behind a keyboard).
Edit: people are like spiders; they're more afraid of you than you are of them.
#3 is my hack, i’ve lived all over the us and can always come up with something to relate to people from different regions
Ha!
I've encountered many Romanians where I live (in all walks of society). I used to always point out I'd seen the movie (Mihai Viteazul).[1]
It never built any kind of connection with them.
Years later, I found out that most Romanians outside of Romania either hate their country, or at least have enough bad memories they want to forget it. For good reason! Bringing up this movie was not a point of connection.
[1] I've not found any proof, but I will swear that Braveheart is just a copy of this movie, adapted to Scotland.
"don't break rapport" is repeated many times and never explained. Might as well say don't squish the vibe.
never squish the vibe
given that there's no way to establish or break rapport on the internet, does that mean we're all rendered as ASD people here?
https://web.archive.org/web/20260515105039/https://liamrosen... if useful
Thanks! The site got hugged to HTTP 500 death.
This is a great list. I didn't disagree with a single point. Some of those lessons took me far too many years to learn myself.
Hard disagree on number 4. Open-ended questions that facilitate conversation are ideal. (They are an art form in themselves.) Since we're being analytical, you need a scaffold for the conversation, and questions are a better way to build it.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting "early on." I guess their point holds for the first 500 words or so.
Very neurotypical coded article. Many of these points are rather harsh and invalid.
What? I'd really like to know what you mean by both of these sentences.
>Very neurotypical coded article.
Does this mean that this article doesn't cater to those who are neurodivergent? It almost seems like this would be most valuable to those who aren't well equipped in social situations, like many neurodivergent people.
Are you referring to the way it is written? The subject matter? The specific recommendations?
>Many of these points are rather harsh and invalid.
I can kind of get invalid (I think it's best to assume each of these requires nuance and aren't universal rules you can blindly follow), but what about any of these are harsh?
I think it's that the comment author thinks these are mainly cheat codes for interacting with neuro-typical ppl, but maybe not good for others.
I feel that they are perhaps overgeneralizing their own neuro-atypical mental models to all neuro-atypical people, but at the very least I take it as "I am not neurotypical and I don't want anyone following these rules when interacting with me" :)
Such as?
‘Neurotypical’ is starting to seem more and more like a slur every day.