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.
That would explain why I can’t do small talk, those are not innate to everyone.
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.
I never got diagnosed as a schizotype in school but they tried really hard to accommodate me anyway. Today I would be misdiagnosed as ADHD or autistic. Today there is a two-class system in school between people who have a diagnosis who can get little accommodations like another two minutes to use the bathroom and people without a diagnosis who have to ride on the back of the bus.
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?
Any chance you remember the name?
Not true. You have to engage in a way that signals very clearly you don't really give much of a shit about talking to her, and your social status is higher than hers.
For example, if you're having a conversation with your bartender friend and you need a female perspective to settle a disagreement, and you ask for it without fully "engaging" with her, that'll work fine. Once she's been pulled in you will have to keep hooking her into the conversation with interesting tidbits, but eventually most women will just keep talking.
he said "_without_ coming off like a creep"
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?
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.
I can field the small talk, several of my friends have commented on my ability to break the ice quickly with strangers. But after a minute or two, the conversation is either over or we're moving onto more interesting discussions.
Come to one of the conservative towns I grew up in and you'll understand the need for such a mentality. Progressive disclosure can lead to things like accepting racism, sexism and other injustices.
It's a good mentality to carry forth into other environments as well, because at the end of the day, the less masks I have to carry, the better.
Most people are fascinating if you engage with them in good will and solidarity. That doesn't mean you have to like them or support every opinion they hold or behavior they exhibit, but just take them as they are and figure out what they are interested in.
I have been surprised to find that many "boring" people are, instead, shy and are much more interesting than the extroverts that are usually labeled as such.
Not everyone is going to value weirdness. That doesn't necessarily make them boring. It doesn't mean they are incapable of revealing interesting truths about themselves - but the author may be unable to detect those for what they are due to his own cultural bias.
I would not go so far as the article suggests, as to be polarizing; I take it as them just going a little hyperbolic in their point. Just I want to be a bit more accepting of myself as well as others. And some people will still dislike me no matter how much I try to hide my personality. Those people are not worth it
Joke's on you, OP - even being like that you'll still find people who think you're boring because it's subjective.
Truth is, once youth passes, over time people become increasingly disinterested in others. This effect was exacerbated by the recent pandemic.
You might be a genuinely fascinating and authentic person, yet all that is going to fall flat in a crowd whose reaction to going outside is "ugh, people".
What really works is showing genuine interest in others. It's such a rare thing in this day and age that many are surprised when they experience it.
I find almost exactly the opposite is true. As you age your perceived value lessens, while you find the nuances of human behaviour ever more fascinating. Meanwhile many of the current cohort of twenty somethings seem disinterested in everything, including one another.
Over time most of the people this age in my extended social circle kind of... faded. I don't know what caused this but I find myself increasingly socialising with younger people because they still haven't retreated to the comfort of their "me time" activities.
The average person perhaps. I find as I get older that people become more fascinating to me. Maybe I've just gotten better at listening and identifying interesting things about them.
I'm not American, but I was meaning to visit Altoona, PA as, according to one person living there, it was "the most average town in US". Unfortunately Luigi Mangione put it on the map, so it most certainly lost that title by now.
https://jacobin.com/2026/02/hyperpolitics-jager-institutions...
Lately I've been "going out-as-a-fox" to get smiles from people when I do street photography. As-a-fox I never push on a string but somehow I wind up being approached by several people a day who I had out "tokens" to that link to my photography. It started out when I realized I could get away with wearing an animal ear hood in public rather than an animal ear headband and at first I looked at it from the frame of character acting -- I started doing photography as-a-fox because I do photography all the time, but when I was forced to explain what I was doing I developed "foxographer" as a cover story but getting the role made it all real, even when I do a shabby job of my adjustments I am finding that people in my environment believe in my character and I'm developing a number of self-working routines that make the whole thing easy.
I've been interested in developing charisma and related subjects for a long time and this character breaks the assumptions I've made all this time (this is the first one who doesn't try to stand taller than I do!) but it puts a zero on the right side of all my KPIs.
Official HD version is available too:
Now, having gone to a pop punk concert and sharing some observation about the crowd or surprising opening act might be interesting. Noticing that a lot of induction puzzles are based on simple features like even/odd is less interesting but still might interest someone.
Reading the room itself is generally considered interesting. If you go for a minute or two about the induction puzzles and your colleague/date/whoever shows no interest, you can turn mid-sentence and imputing "so... no interest in induction puzzles, the last one you saw was in third grade and even then it wasn't your first choice." It's just good conversation.
It's like in writing. Show, don't tell.
What the author is describing is called masking/social camouflage. It is usually a symptom of something deeper - be it low self-esteem, infant trauma, etc. I am not a mental health expert, but I do think that getting to the original cause and treating that will tend to give better results than concentrating on the symptoms.
And one thing that I've been thinking about as a result is that I don't owe anyone my authentic self.
Asking me to reveal more things about myself is asking a hell of a lot, actually. So maybe I'm boring on purpose, because I don't want to get into an argument with a random parent on the playground, or a random stranger on a bus, or a random receptionist at the doctor.
I'll be interesting to the people I'm interested in, and boring to everyone else.
We all (except children generally) wear masks. Sometimes the same mask we've been wearing since teenager-hood. It's unclear what's left under the mask.
To consider an extreme obvious counter-example, think of a cross-cultural situation where social conventions vary widely and adjustment is needed, and then consider that we all hail from our own microcultures with their own customs and expectations.
The real balance to achieve is being who we are in a way that doesn't alienate others. Fully accepting both self and other.
Honestly, I like it and agree that it makes a very good virtue.
But at the same time, I don't think we have a good enough collective understanding of what it means for something to be interesting to use it this way. Complexity isn't noise or quantity. It's also not exactly measured by our emotional or cognitive response to something. It's kind of measured that way, but in a noisy and unreliable way if that makes sense?
Anyways, go read Godel Escher Bach. Much more interesting than anything I've got to say on the matter.
Also, chill out. It's not a competition.
In that sense I don't really get the "some people wont like you". I think it pretty poor form if you don't like people that have a different opinion. How can you not be interested in learning a different view on things?
Are you able to sit motionless looking at a tree for 3 minutes? Can you read a book for an hour? Can you focus intensely on a work project for 2-3 hours?
If not, you may need more boredom to enhance your connection with "mundane" things. Trying to be interesting/authentic/not boring may lead to cheap thrills and provocative experiences moment by moment, which de-train your focus and attention for those very hard tasks you need/want to do in life.
If I say, that guy is boring, he's inauthentic/poser/wanna-be, in my opinion I've failed that interaction. I am not engaging with him, I label him too mundane.
Yet, every person has genuine authenticity and need for connection, if you're attentive and patient enough to see it.
If you go around being frank and blasting your true opinions and true passions at everyone, you may miss a chance to learn more about them themselves, and move past the "boring" label you're putting, to see the real, struggling, suffering, but inherently interesting person underneath.
There is an issue with these folks though. They quite often are hyper-gatekeepers because of their own insecurity about not being "legit." They tend to be over-critical and thus quite tedious (& socially precarious) to talk to.
It's pathological dysfunction, however common it may be.
I suppose you can't see it when you're in it.
Tiktokking for attention as a job is cringe but making stuff like we did for eons cannot possibly be.
When I see "interesting" people doing "interesting" things they look fake, exhausting, or both.
More seriously though: the article is one person's opinion on what makes a boring person and their pet solution. It may work for them, but it won't work for everyone.
It really boils down to the question: what is a boring person? The answer to that will be a subjective one. I would argue a boring people include those who are passionate about sports. A significant proportion of humanity will violently disagree with me. The minute that I open my mouth about my interests, they will migrate to someone who is talking about the latest game. It won't matter whether the interest comes naturally or is cultivated.
I mostly disagree with the author's point about reading audiences. About the only point I do agree with is that we shouldn't let the audience define who we are. I will also concede that having a shallow knowledge of a topic, simply to fit in, will make for boring conversation. But a shallow knowledge to fit in isn't how I describe defining one's interests to fit in.
Thus, being boring is not good.
If you rolled all 1s for charisma, that would be unboring, it'd be memorable!
https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1r6h9h5/any...
I specifically liked the paper:
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xge-xge0001799.pd... https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/30/well/mind/cool-people-tra...
I think cool people make more money, have more opportunities, probably have more fun. But don't get me wrong, the epicurean hedonist in me sometimes wants to just chill and eat bread and water.
> The things on your cringe list are probably the most interesting things about you.
Sadly, it’s a societal issue as we are told to be X or Y. Boys wear blue and hang with the fellas. Girls wear pink and have tea with the ladies. Go to college, get a job, get married, have kids, die.
No one is ever like climb Everest, surf in Indonesia, backpack Europe, get lost in the wilderness.
As an adult you learn that showing your true self can be dangerous in an environment where you don't know who can be trusted. We don't get the allowance of children to be weird or awkward. Others are gunning for us, and looking for any possible weakness. One wrong impression can drastically affect your life. So you curate yourself in a way that keeps your personality for those who can be trusted to accept and understand it, and others may see that as boring until they've been let in. It's just maturity; you have to earn the right to have me let my guard down around you.
You can simply...not care.
Unless it's a context with a minimum required codex such as work.
But in your relationships, if you want to have meaningful ones, you need to find those where you can be yourself.
It's better to have 1 or 2 true friends (hell, most people don't have that many, you're lucky if you do) than knowing and being popular among dozens for a filtered/fake persona you built so others like you.
I jest, but honestly, this article isn't that interesting. It seems to be a rehash of the entire individualizing 21c ethos of "be authentic! Be yourself!" (Just don't question why do all those authentic people all end up listening to punk music, drink IPAs, ride fixies and take photos on film cameras.) I find this view disturbingly narcissistic and, frankly, insulting to those of us who changed ourselves in the presence of others because we want to and like it. I would not be listening to country which I previously considered boring if I never dated a person who does. Am I a lesser person now because I have caved to social pressure or whatever?
It is also rather amusing that the examples of "polarizing" figures are a cookbook author and one of the less remembered figures or new atheism. Try telling others you like Richard Dawkins (whose polarizing views are precisely why he is still a prominent public figure.) Try telling others you enjoy Kid Rock (who I consider, at best, a boring musician propped up purely by ideological reasons.)
What the author mistakes as interestingness is the courage to develop and render judgement, and a resolve to live a life built from the consequences of doing so.
I decided I did not want to be boring. I decided to spend an hour at least on something I found interesting or economically useful. I started a company, would learn programming(now I'm a pro programmer), I learned a few different arts (great for relating to a different set of people when you explain you draw, paint, sew, and crochet)...
Whatever the case, I think there was economic benefits to 'not being boring'. However you really need to push yourself, its way easier to veg out on the couch to fiction. I think caffeine and weed helped me initially, now its just my normal lifestyle.
Trust me it’s not because it’s a fun way to live
2. People often vacillate between conformity and contrarianism. This is what juvenile edgelords on the internet are about. Both conformists and contrarians are trapped inside the same silly paradigm. Both define themselves and behave not in terms of the truth, to which all intelligence and behavior must conform, but in relation to others and what they think. A conformist assumes a persona that agrees with others in their social setting, regardless of whether it is objectively good. A contrarian takes what agrees with others and negates it, regardless of whether it is objectively good. Both are mindless, reflexive, and boring. Both lack substance. Both are empty theater rooted in people-pleasing and approval-seeking. Both are dishonest, cowardly acts of deception.
3. Reading a room isn't about people-pleasing. It's about empathy so that you can response in the way that is good and needed. If you enter a funeral parlor, you don't crack jokes or paint your toenails. You recognize there are people grieving there, that a dead person is being honored. In other words, you also consider, within reason, the good of others in the room, and you respond to the facts as they are, even when pursuing your own goals.
4. One flaw in the "I gotta be ME!" schtick is that it idolizes the self. It makes a god of the self. It puts unmoored desires above the truth instead of rooting desires in the truth. There are plenty of desires that ought not to be indulged, at least not indulged in certain ways or at certain times. The point is that your behavior ought to occur within the scope of reason. What is evil and wrong is always outside of reason.
5. Life can be messy. We can be messy. When that is the case, the goal isn't to keep messing it up or to run with our own mess toward the abyss. These messes, our mess, is a kind of cross we bear for the good. They're things we struggle with, not surrender to. If someone has a tendency to overeat, it might be difficult to resist, but it is good for him to practice fasting. If someone has a habit to reach for porn, it may be painful to resist, but it is good for him to resist and to avoid so that he can overcome the habit instead of wallowing in slavish submission to that awful vice. If someone has a tendency toward irascibility and wrath, it may feel satisfying to indulge it in the moment, but practicing meekness is the true reward. If someone has trouble with envy, tearing someone down may scratch that itch, but responding with selfless good will is freedom. Triumph over vice makes us interesting. Succumbing to its easiness makes us boring.