Don't forget level five: being invited to social functions with people you don't know very well. Not only are you not in the comfort of your own home, not in control of the situation, and not able to make amusing conversation, but now a large group of people bear witness to your interpersonal epicfail and once the conversation runs dry may find yourself simply sitting in silence listening to whatever racket is being played (usually very loud) in the background, frozen in your seats, preserved in awkwardness like some sort of distasteful museum exhibit.
In my experience people know what it is like to be stuck as "that guy" in such a situation, and they've all had to endure the Awkward Silence(tm), and they're cool with it. Let them toss you a lifeline - I find that directly exposing the awkwardness of the situation gets a few ironic laughs and also gives you the excuse to completely diverge from the previous conversation path.
Awkward Silences(tm) happen, people know they happen. The trick is that if you let it bother you, people around you will let it bother them (and their perception of you). The only solution is to barge right on through it as if you don't care.
but its not quite a trap when someone invites you to the trap, telling you "hey, I'm having a trap. Wanna come?" Plus, you can leave the trap by saying "I have another trap to go to."
This kind of "awkwardness" is felt as a result of being stuck in your head. It's only awkward if you're worried about making a mistake. But you can relax, you're allowed to make mistakes. No one except you really cares if you said something stupid or rude or pointless.
No one except you really cares if you said something [..] rude
I don't think that's true and I think that it shows that you have never actually broken off an unwanted conversation by being honest. If you do that and, for instance, say "I'm sorry, but this conversation really doesn't interest me", people will feel insulted. You are forced to beat around the bush.
[or] stupid or pointless
The fact that you yourself care about those is enough. You don't want to feel forced to say stupid or pointless things.
There are two ways out:
1) Be interested in what people have to say about certain subjects and steer the conversation there. Those subjects have to be general enough that everyone has something to say about them. Sometimes you turn out to be annoying, for instance when you are cross-examining someone about why they are happy with their lives.
2) Accept the fact that people will think you're weird or an asshole. Me, I just stay silent when there's nothing left to say. There's nothing wrong with silence. When the silence lasts long enough, I turn around and walk.
The Onion just did a piece that fits in really well with all this... Even though it is written in jest, it somehow fits reality much better than we might like to admit when it comes to social motivation... Brutal honesty? You decide...
Some people like to make an attempt to be in control of their life. If you just run your mouth, you end up revealing information about yourself that you didn't intend. Often people might not be able to tell that what you said was an accident and they could hold you accountable in that relationship for it. I don't really like to cut loose unless I have a point to make.
The article plays off the insecurities of others in their belief that they are imposing on others by being social. That being said, it has very very funny ms paint illustrations.
I do great one on one, probably better than most. I can converse without focusing on myself. I inquire, listen, reciprocate. What I suck at is group talk. Part of it is that I'm actually following what everyone is saying and not looking for the point when I can interrupt with a comment. Though what most people say in such situations, particularly amongst tenuous friendships or uncommon coworkers amounts to low level banter.
Is there a word for letting the world know how great you are by not-so-cleverly disguising your greatness as a shortcoming? There should be. I need it every day.
(Sorry to bother you with this, I actually am quite verbally adept, but English is my twenty-sixth foreign language and even after weeks of practice sometimes the correct word escapes me.)
Hear, hear. I dread having conversations in large groups. Make it a loud bar, and I just find a reason not to go. A conversation with 3 people might work. @ 4+ it just turns into a mess. I either don't say enough, or jump in at the wrong time and cut someone off because I am afraid someone else will jump in.
Eh, honestly be grateful there are people that want to talk to you. Learn some basic assertiveness if such friendly interactions are excruciating for you.
it's easier for some people than for others. Especially for introverts, the skill of leaving gracefully is a non-trivial skill that needs to be learned.
I mean, most people are capable of saying "fuck you leave me alone you asshole" but usually, you don't want to come off that strong. In most cases, you don't really have any desire to hurt the other person, and hell, you might even want to talk later, or talk about a different subject. I just want to be very clear that I am not interested in hearing about how all 50 presidents can be traced back to some 13th century English aristocrat, or hearing about some other crazy political idea or theory that doesn't lead to something implementable.
It's the ability to make it clear that you aren't interested in this conversation right now without sounding like you aren't interested in talking with this person ever that is the tricky bit for those of us who are not particularly skilled.
I used to be really, really bad at this. I'm getting better, but I still use crutches and props like my laptop or cellphone, or simply making up something I've gotta do. (well, really, there's /always/ something useful I could be doing, but if I'm at my local hackerspace, if someone wants to talk politics, I'm far more likely to actually start working as an excuse to avoid the conversation.)
Part of it is being willing to be a little rude... but like I said, the hard part about that isn't so much the being rude, the hard part is being "a little" rude - enough to get the desired result without completely alienating the other person.
This, I think, is what the author of the article was mentioning. In the introduction, he says "You need to find a way to end the conversation without making it seem like you want the conversation to end." - which is wrong, I think. My opinion is that you should find a way to indicate that you wish to end this conversation without indicating that you don't like or never want to talk to this person again.
I don't get why "talking politics" is something to so desperately avoid in the US. Many intelligent people just wont talk about leaving mostly the close minded life long party members to be the only voices. Personally I think this is why the political landscape is so awful in the US.
Hi, I'm an intelligent American who occasionally tries talking about politics.
Many otherwise intelligent Americans are monomaniacal nutjobs or partisan hacks when it comes to politics. Of course, many Americans who are not otherwise intelligent are just as bad. People get indoctrinated in a certain political viewpoint and don't have the ability to take on good faith anyone who disagrees with them. As a result of this, it's so difficult to find someone capable of intelligently and thoughtfully discussing political issues that it's rarely worth it.
Even if you do happen to get two people in a conversation who disagree politically and are capable of thoughtfully and intelligently discussing political issues, it's so much effort to do so that it's usually not a fun conversation unless you're already good friends with the person in question. Discussing politics with people you've just met, or people with whom you're only vaguely acquainted, is a recipe for disaster.
Worst of all is when you're in a group of people who think they're all in political agreement, but you disagree with all of them. (As a right-of-centre academic, this happens surprisingly often.) They're saying something which you not only disagree with, but which is factually false in some detail. Do you speak up and risk alienating everybody, or bite your tongue and suffer through it? (Or do you pretend you need to go to the bathroom and hope the subject has changed when you come back? That's what I tend to do...)
Worst of all is when you're in a group of people who think they're all in political agreement, but you disagree with all of them. (As a right-of-centre academic, this happens surprisingly often.)
I can't abide that, and usually speak up just to break the illusion that everyone agrees. Of course, frank discussions of real politics are probably a career-limiting move in faculty politics....
If they really are as intelligent as you/they think then try pointing out to them their close mindedness [1]. I used to be firmly on the American right wing (i.e. didn't think other ideologies had much merit, if any) until I came to Europe and realized my views simply could not be reconciled with countries like e.g. Sweden doing just fine.
You can't discount something that works. As a programmer, I know that "works" doesn't mean that something is the best way or is even good at all, but it at least can't be discounted out of hand.
I wish there were a way to e.g. make pg's "how to disagree" required reading for anyone wishing to participate in political discussions (and vote for that matter).
[1] "Close minded" is often used as a kind of weapon by people unable to argue their point, but I use it to mean "unwilling to reconsider their position even when it's demonstrated to be untrue or at least incomplete".
Have you tried that? I have, and people don't respond right away. Maybe it sinks in and they get it weeks or months or years later, but so far no one has come back to thank me.
Whenever someone makes an identity-shattering or worldview-shattering argument to me, I violently resist it for weeks before it sinks in. Maybe that's what happens to other people, but it's still rather unsatisfying.
I have in fact. I try to take it slow, get agreement on the importance of using logic for discussion as opposed to emotion and then when they say something that's obviously wrong I basically point out a counter example and ask them why they think the counter example violates their belief (softly, not aggressively like happens on the internet).
> I don't get why "talking politics" is something to so desperately avoid in the US.
It's because there isn't a single party where you can't find crazy people who have no contact with reality who also hate anyone who disagrees with them. Oh, and the blogs/online news comments are filled with paid political hacks during election season. During the election, I noticed things like how the same guy got first post with the same username to every news story with comments on every paper at the top of Google News. He vanished immediately after the election. I think someone even paid their supporters openly.
Worse, feelings and identity have become much more important than facts (you don't vote for your political party, you are a Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Pirate/Socialist/Communist/Independent/I'm sorry if I left your party out) and it's simply not possible to discuss the issues in any depth without getting someone really mad.
Even if you can absolutely prove that X is untrue, you'll get a "But $other_party is just as bad! They did $bad_stuff (and that might even be true). Why did you fail to mention that? Why don't you hate them for that, too!? You're not one of us, you're one of them!"
In short, rational debate has become impossible because there are strong feelings everywhere and it's just not worth it to anyone but strong partisans to jump into the fray (most people don't like being hated), so moderate voices are excluded and the US vs. THEM dynamic gets intensified.
Alas, this is infecting more than just politics. I don't even want to touch the tech flamewars.
I agree with what you said, I just think it can't be allowed to continue. It causes more and more damage all the time.
Maybe someone could make a TV show where you have guests and talk politics, but if one of the participants commits a logical fallacy (e.g. you're "but they're just as bad!" example) they have their mic turned off for 2 minutes, get kicked off the show or something. There must be some way to begin associating arguing from emotion with being "uncool".
This question has made me think. I mean, I really do seem to be a better, happier person with more (and more diverse) friends when I avoid political discussions. I think a really big part of this is that I really enjoy being around people who are different from me. People who are good at different things; people who come from different backgrounds. (I mean, with some exceptions. I have prejudices, like everyone else. I'm working on it.) And these people, usually, have very different political and religious ideas than I do.
I mean, for example, I think having religion and going to church, in general, is no better (or worse) than, uh, religiously attending your favourite animé convention, and participating in con politics. I mean, both seem a little weird in my mind, but I have many friends who are deeply and genuinely religious, and many friends who regularly attend animé conventions. (really, I have little more than "Boy, that's... different" curiosity when it comes to religion or animé conventions.) I'd really rather keep both sets of friends. And you know what? If I keep bringing this up to my religious friends, they probably aren't going to want to be around me (just like if they kept trying to convert me, I probably wouldn't want to be around them.) I mean, I don't hide my non-belief, but I try to largely avoid the subject, and when it does come up, I try to be respectful, and ask they do the same for me.
Really, there are many areas of politics that are, if not directly religious in nature, are still taken on 'faith' -
For example, some people feel that society has a responsibility to take care of all of the less fortunate. Nobody should starve in the street or lack for basic medical care, regardless of what poor choices they made. Others feel that if society gives everyone a fair shake, their responsibility is met. Those who chose well should not be forced to support those who chose poorly.
Now, most people believe something between those two viewpoints... but it's fundamentally an emotional choice. Sure, you can argue the merits of a particular policy on logical grounds, but that is a mere implementation. the base question I gave as the example can really only be answered on an emotional level.
I avoid it because I know too many people who normally are very interesting and intelligent; people I enjoy talking with, most of the time, who seem to turn into raving lunatics whenever their pet political topic is brought up.
now, it's quite possible that I'm the politically crazy one here... but that's not my point. My point is that political conversations, at least for me, simply aren't productive or interesting. this is a realm governed by unpleasant emotions and group identity.
Conversation Zen Levels from lowest zen to highest:
Level 1: The conversation does not involve talking about your job. This is only acceptable in business network situations. If you are not at a trade show, business event, in an interview or at work you shouldn't talk about work. This is the most pathetic type of small talk, as it immediately puts you in a social class/stereotype bucket.
Level 2: The conversation does not involve talking about where you live, or whether you are going to school and where. Unless you are exactly the same age, you are not likely to gain any useful information from this, except to put people into a social class or stereotype bucket, which is detrimental to conversation.
Level 3: The conversation does not involve talking about any topics that have to do with people or activities outside of the immediate first-hand knowledge of the individuals involved in the conversation. E.g no talk about sports, celebrities, world politics, etc. This kind of talk usually results in nothing positive that you haven't had 100 or more conversations about already and serves to bucketize, not in so far as social class is concerned but in other aspects. Sometimes the other person will have specialized knowledge about a topic, for instance you may have read the same book or may be into the same niche topic, and this is acceptable conversation for this zen level but usually conversation falls into overly mainstream categories that tend to categorize and stereotype. It's really really hard to have a common niche interest unless you're at an event catering to that interest so best not to bother.
Level 4: The conversation does not involve any conversation about anything taking place in the past or outside of the immediate physical area. This only usually happen as part of a shared activity and may be difficult or impossible on a plane or similar circumstances where there is little in the way of shared experience in the immediate physical area.
Figure out what Zen level you want to communicate with people at and then just don't talk unless you can achieve that zen level. Ok I made that all up right in this comment box. The main idea is to avoid any sort of conversation that would bucketize the other person into a particular social class or stereotype for as long as possible or bore them with uninteresting chatter in order to have any more fulfilling interaction. What do you guys think?
Maybe this is a little bold to be stating on a tech-oriented blog, but I dread having a conversation about cellphones. I don't care what kind of cellphone you have. I don't care that you care what kind of cellphone I have. I don't want to talk about what kind of apps I use, or the new features, or the latest goddam iPhone.
Its probably because the conversations are usually so freaking trite and predictable, and 99% of the time no one has anything interesting to say about their cellphones, my cellphone, or what kind of cellphone they want and deserve. It's also a reminder of the consumer culture we live in and it makes me feel like a yuppie when I'm fighting my hardest to avoid becoming one.
That all said, I inevitably end up in them, and a part of me dies every time, even as I smile and laugh and talk about the great speech recognition on my 3GS and how AT&T sucks.
Did you notice his line at the end, "Ok I made that all up right in this comment box." ? That kind of implies that the Zen labels were not to be taken seriously.
In non-dating recreational situations you can actually pull off level 4 if you're disciplined. For instance, if you go to a sailing class. Only talk about sailing and learning sailing. Put all your brain into it and keep out of lower level talk. People will find you very mysterious and interesting because you didn't lay all your cards on the table so they could just put you in a bucket.
Think about the boring guy at the sailing class. Later on you find out he's a doctor, or a builder, or a fraud investigator or a republican or likes watching hockey or went to college at Stanford. What if he didn't tell you any of that until you had known him for a couple of weeks or even months during the course of that sailing class vs if he had told you that all up front?
I usually find that nobody's eyes light up and get excited when I tell them I work as a software developer. I'm now a nerd, or too smart, or boring, or a member of the
"technical professional" social class.
If I had some really exciting job like being a movie star, I'd be stuck having to repeat answers to the same frequently asked questions every time I met someone new. The idea of the zen levels is to get to know other people first as humans before socially categorizing them. It's about showing them your personality instead of telling them all your credentials up front.
That's a fair goal, but I think the strict adherence to only certain conversation topics wont come off as mysterious. I think it will come off as creepy or boring. For me, being mysterious is being involved in any conversation in a way that everyone enjoys and only later realize that you didn't reveal anything about yourself in it.
But when would he tell you those things if he kept at Level 4 all the time? When you just happened to run into him at a hockey match or a Republican meeting?
Doesn't this just reduce to "talk about the weather"? Because if you're not going to talk about anything that isn't in the immediate physical area and isn't in the past, you're reduced to "nice weather today, isn't it?" or perhaps "See that lamp over there? I like that lamp. I don't like that carpet though."
Level 3 is fine, if you're at a dinner party or something like that with people you don't know and you just have to talk to someone because it's boring otherwise. Usually social situations work better though if there's some sort of shared activity or purpose to the event.
Think about how people meet all their best friends in college and in high school. At these stages of one's life people haven't been split off into their social segments yet and have plenty to talk about because they are helping each other study for exams, or playing on sports teams together or working on other practical projects like organizing clandestine weekend keggers. It's in these situations that people really get to know each other, instead of just this social filtering process that usually passes for conversation.
Can you try not using double negatives like "does not involve ... activities outside first-hand knowledge"? It's really hard to read, especially since I'm tired.
One of my neighbors has the habit of ending his conversations with, "Well, I don't have anything left to say" and then going back to his apartment. I like that about him.
Other than that, I didn't like the article. From what I've seen of this blog, the blogger seems far too interested in seeking recognition for her often-childish neuroses rather than developing the self-efficacy to do anything about them. There's no shame in admitting you're too tired to hang out, and there's no need to greet an acquaintance at the grocery store with any more than a nod and a "hey man" if you don't have anything to say.
From what I understand, this blogger is a purely and explicitly comedic blogger who is making a living off of what she does. I'll leave it as an open exercise to enumerate exactly what it is she does that is valuable [0], but to criticize the author of this blog for not being lionhearted is pretty much like criticizing Larry David for not being Laurence Olivier.
---
[0] How is there not some terse bit of internet-ese to invoke the futility of examining some instance of humour?
I enjoyed the validation that other people have experiences similar to mine, regardless of how they handle them. However, what is with the weird [0] citation etc.
Was it really nice to meet them? Or are you trying to ditch them? When someone pulls the 'it was nice meeting you' gambit on you - are you relieved or do you like being ditched?
Oh man, life in Indiana is much simpler, it appears. We're good at polite nothings - nobody sane here would be offended at somebody saying, "Well, nice meeting you" and walking away. That's just how you say you're done with this particular interaction. If people don't like it, they probably move to Seattle or something.
It's not about liking, but about understanding. I'm often not interested in talking to someone. Because I'm pretty regular, that means that other people often aren't interested in talking to me. That's just a fact of life.
Was it really nice to meet them?
Autism alert. Such expressions are not meant to be taken literally. As a kid, I used to worry about not raking together the freshly mown grass well enough, because I was asked to rake together all the loose grass and the damned stuff kept slipping. That wasn't perfectionism, but something closer to autism: not understanding that 'raking together all the grass' was in no way meant to imply I had to even try to get all the grass. I used to get into arguments with my father about me being unhappy with my job of washing the car, because it wasn't actually completely clean. If you have such a problem, now would be a good time to start identifying these situations; it'll save you a lot of trouble.
It's ambiguous. That's the point. The relationship will remain ambiguous until it is tested in some way.
Some people -- not that I would stereotype us computer folks this way -- are extremely averse to social ambiguity, but most people are pretty comfortable with it. If they need to know something (does that chick like me?) they'll find out in the natural course of things (when they ask her out.) In the meantime, if they really, really care, they'll have some anxiety over it, but that doesn't apply to most interactions. You don't really need to know right now if that person found it nice to meet you, and rushing to figure it out only increases the chances that you'll end up believing something false.
Since people are generally okay with ambiguity, it's a no-brainer to them to observe identical social niceties in some situations regardless of their actual feelings. There's no point in alienating someone unnecessarily, especially since you might change your mind later. "Man, what a day. I hated the latte I got this morning, I hated the ham sandwich I got for lunch, I hated work, and then I ran into that wallflower douchebag at the grocery store. Come to think of it, it's probably just me; I hated everything today. wallflower is probably a decent guy. Maybe I'll invite him to my party this weekend." Because things can change moment-to-moment, even especially perceptive people who can see through the niceties treat a lot of what they perceive as provisional. They don't go back to their lair and add a row to their enemies database because somebody was a little frosty at the grocery store.
P.S. The average person's tolerance for social ambiguity is one reason why it's so frustrating to try to get tips from people who have a lot of social confidence. We go to great lengths to figure things out to increase our comfort level and avoid doing the wrong thing; they don't sweat it if something isn't obvious to them, and when they need to know something, they use a low-risk probe that at worst results in a mild but informative "mistake." Usually the real challenge is not an analytical challenge of figuring out the situation but a creative challenge of coming up with something to do or say that will turn out okay no matter what the situation actually is, and will hopefully yield more information so you can refine your approach.
you know what I don't like? I don't like not knowing if a person is genuinely interested or just being polite. I mean, the last thing I want to do is to trap someone into a boring (to them) conversation. I'd much rather they tell me they aren't interested. On the other hand, I don't want to avoid talking to people out of unfounded fear.
Really, the best solution is to have people leave when they are no longer interested in talking to me. (I mean, it'd be even better if I could get actual feedback so I'd know if they were bored or if they have other things to do but that sounds like too much to ask.) I mean, I try to leave people places in the conversation where they can leave if they aren't interested in my 'tales from the computer janitor' or whatever, but that's hard to do without sounding like I'm not interested in talking to them, so really it works out best when people are direct.
So yeah, speaking as someone without much by way of social skills, I depend on people leaving, or as you said "ditching" me when they are bored with me- I mean, sure there are subtle signals the socially skilled send so others can tell when someone else is bored. Sometimes I can pick up on those... but sometimes I can't. Like I said, I'm not very socially skilled.
You speak a minority language and will never persuade the majority to learn yours. On the other hand, it takes two to tango, and if they can't extricate themselves from an unwanted conversation with you, then either they aren't trying very hard (because they're passive-aggressive) or their social skills have limits just like yours. Either way, it's a combination of their weakness with yours that leads to awkwardness. By all means keep working on your skills, but try to see "normal" people as falling into a spectrum of social ability that you also fall into (deep in one end, apparently, but you'll be surprised how close some "normal" people come.)
I agree. I'm just trying to explain that this assumption that other people will break off the conversation if they are not interested is central to how I've overcome my own social anxiety.
That runs the risk of not extricating yourself. Maybe you go and meet those people over there and your new "friend" comes with you. Turns out those people are boring too, so you have to move on to the next group of people.
Saying "well, if you'll excuse me I'm going to get another drink/some food/whatever" is fine. They won't follow you unless you invite them (or at least they shouldn't), since that's code for "I'm ditching this conversation, bye!"
This strategy, as others have pointed out, is hedged heavily towards not ditching the solo "latch key" event attendee. For maximum effect, if you do try it (it's a rush), join a group that is seated by dragging chairs over (demonstrates maximum commitment) to sit down with the new group. A lot of what the other posters have said - it's nice meeting you is average social lubricant. What this strategy espouses is focusing on the other person, not you. You presumably are indifferent to 'nice meeting you' rejection. This is about not making the other party feel rejected. As a bonus, it makes you into a leader - organizing disparate groups, bridging cliched cliches...
That reminds me that apparently so many people actually seem to like going to places like bars and hang there for hours keeping on completely pointless conversations and drinking beer. Really, I don't get it. Twice a year is Okay, but twice a week? I'd be bored to death. Can anyone explain this social mystery?
People go to bars and have conversations that they find pleasant. You need to go and have conversations that you find pleasant, which for you probably means stimulating and informative. You're probably talking to people who like different kinds of conversations. Find new people!
Alternatively, get interested in people themselves instead of just what they talk about. Every conversation can be mined for information about the person you're talking with. I'm working on this myself by reading Studs Terkel.
Most people go to bars with friends, not slight acquaintances, and have fun in-depth conversations, not pointless conversations. Most of the situations depicted in the cartoon are the result of unintentional meetings.
It's more like dogs playing in a bar. Nobody is really talking much, they are just exerting social power and forming groups and having a good time. If you aren't obsessed with socializing, it would be really boring, and even shamefully so.
Amazed that someone even figured this out. I also tried cleaning my monitor and, on failing, rationalized it away as some kind of oil smear that would later require proper cleaning.
When at level 4, I try to have the conversation at the door with me inside and the other person outside. Once, I was really tired, but the other person really kept going on and on, I gave several hints that I've had enough, but he just didn't get it, I even said "Okay, It's nice talking, but I need to sleep now." He answered that he understood, but for some reason understanding it didn't make him stop talking. I really didn't care anymore so I just closed the door slowly while still he was talking. And left it at that. My roomate who was watching said I was rude, I said I know and we both laughed.
Enjoyed the article, but I've learned to just be a little rude. Rejection is part of life, and you can't live yours just trying not to hurt peoples' feelings. In fact, if you actually care, you should find a time to talk to the person about how they can improve themselves. If you don't, the more honest you are with your interactions, the better, IMO.
People who play the game this author plays are a big reason I want to get out of Seattle. It's passive aggressive niceties like this that quickly take over the fun in life and drive me nuts.
I assume you have comprehensive personal experience of everywhere else in the USA, nay, the world, to be able to say this. I'd love to hear of your extensive travel experiences.
OK! I'll take your comment at face value! I live in South America, grew up in the southern US (deep south), spent 11 years in Seattle, worked off and on in California, spent lots of time with friends from all over the world, but particularly Korea, Japan, Norway, England... I've never met a more passive agressive group of people or place than Seattle. And I say that as someone who still really loves the city and will probably go back there.
I have pretty broad personal experience in the USA and globally. I also have the experience of talking about this with tons of other transplants to Seattle, as well as disgruntled locals, and reading a lot about it. Not much disagreement on this one - Seattle has deep issues with passive aggression and false niceties.
I have generally no problems with this. I am a type 3.
I am totally convinced emotionally that if I tell people about my nerdy interests carefully, they will understand that the subjects are the coolest things on (and off) the planet.
My saving grace is that I have so many nerdy interests that I can speak to most people anyway.
My message is: You don't need to fear me, just start talking about sports. Baseball is good, if you want to see real fear in my eyes.
It is OK if you don't know anything about sports, you can bluff me. :-)
