And if it is purely business, the part in the book about being able to immediately deepen the conversation to say, the person’s health problems, is a bit creepy. It’s a fact-finding mission that transgresses into way too personal matters, or an attempt at social friendship that is tainted by too much up-front manipulation.

Des- If you are able to control what is out there about you on the internet- you have my humble admiration. 90% of what is out there may be nothing you actually post, or wanted posted, and some may not even be true. And just wait until medical records are stored online for doctors easy access! If banks can be hacked, anything can, or it can even appear online by accident- we hear the stories everyday. Scary, really.

Re; real conversation- getting to know someone is like a dance. If you jump straight into an intense tango, you miss out on the elegance of falling into rhythm together. Anyone doubting this should watch the small talk of “Indiscreet.” Best small talk on the big screen. (Ingrid Bergman and Carey Grant)

Besides, it’s just akward to act like a friend before you’ve earned the right to. I believe it’s what they call over-familiar, and a social faux pas. As in when a salesperson addresses me by first name without asking.

I think what troubles me about Trent’s post is the seeming lack of boundaries between business and social connections. They appear to overlap, and the same kind of research is not appropriate for both. My life is not so integrated as to lack the distinctions, nor would I want it to be.

While I am friendly to people who have nothing in common with me, I can’t call them friends. They provide no “usefulness” in my life. Not that they aren’t nice and good people. But, my friends will be people I can game with, or who I can fish with, or with who I can talk about the world’s problems.

Think of it this way: many people socialize with their coworkers. Coworkers are useful. Thus, building bonds with coworkers can make your work life better.

I think part of the “creepiness” factor you see is that the book sets up a goal of meeting/networking with people. Just like any goal, you need a plan to make it successful. There are darned few successful endeavors that occur by happenstance. Setting a goal of “never eating alone” means you need to do some planning, and this includes doing some legwork.

That said, relationships cannot be forced. The toxic networker will come across as slimy, but if someone on my “want to meet list” is at a conference, and I find their Facebook page and learn he enjoys flyfishing . . . what’s the harm in mentioning that? He likes flyfishing, I like flyfishing, and he has a production issue that I can offer advice on because I’ve got some 6-sigma training . . . .

I also recognize something else. This book treats social contacts like some dating advice articles: Get out there and ask. “Throwing a wide net” to see if anything sticks. Professional contacts are slightly easier, because there’s usually something you already have in common.

As for my “aspirational” list, I’d very much like to meet George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods), and Zig Ziglar. Robin Williams and Alton Brown. And I wouldn’t turn down a DnD game with Vin Diesel and Wil Wheaton, either . . . .

Perhaps it’s just that this is clumsily stated, but THAT sentence is “creepy”. “Useful” – as in, “I can now USE this person to get what I want.”

After the first post in this series, I thought I’d perhaps pick up a copy. At this point however, the book is beginning to seem distasteful… (an I’m a believer in networking!)

Maybe it’s just the personal examples you provide, and how they’re described.

And ditto the comment about small talk. There’s nothing inherently wrong with small talk, and doing it well with a diverse group of people is a genuine skill.

That’s it, in a nutshell, to me as well. Real networking has to be organic. (There is a grat quote in the I Ching about not making unnatural (as in forced/fake) connections.)

There’s so much fake, phoney and forced stuff going on that something that is real and genuine has far more appeal than those based on “let’s make a deal” at some point or the other.

FYI: To me, there’s a difference between doing some casual research online about a person (but keeping in mind that not everything you find may be accurate) and preparing in-depth research of the kind mentioned in the book excerpt. That’s just invasive.

It’s one thing to be a genuine “fan” of someone you have not yet met, but might. Loads of public people have a “following” as it were. But it’s another to always be looking at someone for what they might do for you. And most folks are really good at seeing those folks for who they are.

If you have genuine interests that are shared, a legit way to help…great. But most people do not have those things with the people they meet. Hence, meet as strangers and see what develops legitimately.

I’ve met lots of people over the years. The best were those that sprung up spontaneously and were not based on our jobs, our positions and/or our ability to “do something” for each other. It’s amazed me who I’ve gotten to know by not “seeking” them.

This kind of network is really close to professional “stalking” in its own way.

FYI, even most prospective employers will at least google you for a background check. Googling someone you want to meet isn’t that strange.

Small-talk–what is it about small-talk that seems to make some people, and I’m going to generalize and say MEN, think that it’s a distasteful and unnecessary part of socializing? It’s a skill, and not everyone can do it, but it’s a form of communications wherein both parties can figure out if they have anything in common, or if personalities clash or, as in many women’s cases, whether or not the person coming up to them is setting off alarm bells.

I fully agree with Kristine’s post, btw.

OK, this can be innocuous, useful possibly meaning someone to share a common interest with. But it comes across as barter system- I am useful to you this way- you are useful to me that way.

That may be true, but there is a beauty to the happenstance. Forging ahead as if social connections are a goal to be met is somehow a real turn-off.

Maybe those who “just let it happen” are not as successful. But 100% of their connections are genuine, spontaneous good natured interactions, not calculated and evaluated. It’s based on like, not commodity value.

As a primarily emotional thinker, I would not be flattered by someone who did “research” on me- I would immediately assume this person had an agenda. And if only came out much later in the relationship- then I would find their intentions retroactively suspect, and it would damage the connection as some form of breach of trust.

I am wondering if this is because I am female, and welcome opinions on whether there ids a gender discrepancy on this one. I wonder if your wife makes connections in this same fashion, or at least her opinion on it.

Your approach may be fine and accepted by some, but you will come across people who find this approach much too Macheavelian. And if you hide your “research” to work around such a response, what, too, does that say?

I reminds me, just a tad, of the people who befriend you to add you to their home party-selling lists.

PS- I am sure if you just wrote to Dave Ramsey, he would meet with you, given all the free publicity you afford him!