Speaking less demonstrates comfort in one’s own skin if coupled with a relaxed demeanour and adds to your sense of mystery.
14 tiny behaviours that make people instantly respect you more
- thread -
Speaking less demonstrates comfort in one’s own skin if coupled with a relaxed demeanour and adds to your sense of mystery.
Quick movements and fidgeting make you appear nervous and thus lower status.
Nothing says ‘I’m confident and I am interested in other people’ than holding someone’s gaze, especially for a little longer than might feel comfortable.
👀
Occasionally say something that needs to be said that no one else is daring to say.
Speak your mind honestly.
Reactive people don’t leave space between a triggering stimulus and their emotional response.
Remain stoic.
How refreshing is it to see someone speaking to someone who is actively attentive?
It is becoming rare.
Instant respect.
You don't always need to be there or respond to that text instantly.
The more scarce anything is the higher its perceived value.
If there was one way to have people fall in love with you, it's to follow your weird.
Allow your quirky, fun side to come out.
Give people the space for you to process what they say properly.
Allow a few extra seconds.
This is rare and will set you apart.
The seemingly superficial can make a huge difference.
Dress well and you will feel better and create an entirely different impression versus looking scruffy.
Talk slower and you will calm down, elevate your perceived status, and garner respect.
Pleasing people does not lead to increased respect.
Instead, be valuable and serve people when it’s appropriate.
Most people are running around giving things to people with expectations tied to their ‘charity.’
Be different.
Grow your tribe by giving value to one person at a time.
🔆
14 tiny behaviours that make people instantly respect you more:
1. Talk less
2. Be relaxed and move slow
3. Hold people's eye
4. Talk boldly
5. Emotional control
6. Be undistracted
7. Be less available
14 tiny behaviours that make people instantly respect you more:
8. Be weird
9. Actually listen
10. Dress well
11. Talk a fraction slower
12. Stop trying to impress
13. Take up more space
14. Give without expectation.
I keep getting messages from you thanking me for this free gift:
'The 12 Habits of Mentally Strong People'
Yours free today for a SHORT time, when you subscribe to my newsletter:
https://t.co/OGByjZPNoc
🔆
Please *click* below + retweet this tweet: https://t.co/Gx89a0ZvT4
More from Alex Mathers
More from Principles
You May Also Like
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?