This is by far the most helpful and tangible networking advice I’ve heard. I’ve always felt that I screwed myself over in college by not having the capacity to connect with my peers and professors. And even now at 27 I fear that I can’t get into the “right” rooms with the “right” people that can help me secure a place in my field. This advice is a much more organic approach that feels like something I can manage at any age. Thank you!
I paused this video halfway through and messaged old friends I haven't talked to in a century. I made some meaningful connections with people who I really did miss, so thanks for this video
Jordan recently shot up to become my all-time favorite podcaster, and I love listening his mind-blowing podcasts over and over again, as there is so much information to absorb. The conversations are efficient and aways entertaining. The full show notes, books, links, and other resources in he provides along with each and every episode are well done and every detail is appreciated greatly. The topics covered in this lecture may not be as relevant today, with the distributed workforce, where there is a more level playing field and things are more measured by output.
Not sure how to feel about this.. So if we think about the cost of opportunity instead, the speaker pretty much used a phone call/connection and stole opportunity from a more qualified student from getting admission into Michigan. Stole might be a strong word here, but the discussion I would like to bring up is whether as a society we should push for soft skill > hard skill?
This isn't what happened at all. "Stole" is not only a strong word, it's a fabrication. I'm not sure if you misunderstood or are deliberately mischaracterizing what happened. I'll assume the former. I wrote a letter in a legal argument format to the Admissions Committee. They let me in for a future year of law school, not the current class. Nobody had to leave school because I was admitted (of course). Nobody else was more entitled to that spot simply because of their scores. That's not how admissions works. Scores are one element, soft skills and experiences another. I did not have a 'connection' to the admissions committee, nor was any phone call made other than to offer me a place in the class. I would also argue soft skills, especially when it comes to being admitted to law school > hard skills ANY day of the week. Soft skills and deficiency in that area is actually why I was asked to speak at Google in the first place. :)
Teaching this is kind of like handing out rape whistles. On the one hand, for those who find use for it, it is extremely useful. It is definitely good for them that they had that tool to help them better their situation. On the other hand, it's a sign that something is seriously wrong when you have to go around handing them out. In an age where information flows around the world at not quite light speed, why are people having such a hard time connecting that bringing a few names in your contact list makes you better, or even just equally, qualified for a position than someone who is better at it than you by a standard measure? Should we be encouraging systems where it isn't the person who can best do the job that is hired or promoted but simply the person who can get an 'in' from someone? That's just a few genes away from nepotism.
You're missing the point, but I think it's probably an oversight as opposed to deliberate. You're assuming here that the person doing the connecting isn't as qualified. That's a big assumption, and one that people often make as an excuse to not have to do the connecting, but to assume that since you're keeping your head down, or are skilled, that you deserve the position. You're also assuming that a connector has no value in the network itself. I covered this in the talk, as the network alone has value. In fact, it's MORE valuable than mere skill, as your technical skills are often replaceable, whereas networks largely are unique to the individual. You'd be well-served to rethink your assumptions when it comes to this. Thanks for watching.
@@JordanHarbingerShow Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I think my concept may not have been conveyed. The network is the rape whistle. It is valuable and useful, but the need for it is a sign of a different, larger problem. The network is a medium of exchange of information and trust, which is itself a different kind of information about unknown information's. The fact that you bring value to a person or business just by sharing their information is a sign that we have failed to develop a good system for disseminating that information. The fact that the best method we have for disseminating that information can be hacked by having a more ingratiating persona is a flaw, not a feature. Yes, skill can be replaced, but a network full of networkers has little to no skill and therefore can't do much of anything that requires it. Skill is what gets things done, networking is just an inefficient method of acquiring skill by acquiring people. You have sought and found another way to provide value (given out the whistle) but failed to look for a way to make it unnecessary. I understand this is kind of your shtick and so I'm asking the donkey (not using the animal as an insult; it just fits the metaphor) to help design the engine that turns the cart into a truck, but I hope, on a broader, rational level, you can understand, even if you won't change your whole life based on it.
@@finfan7 Disagree. The network itself IS a feature. Human trust is not replaceable (right now). This isn't simply a transfer of information. You're also assuming networks are formed by personality, not skill. This is also false, as demonstrated by the talk itself. So, while you might be right about efficiency, etc, you're mistaken/wrong about the greater concept at play here. Thanks for watching! -Jordan.
@@JordanHarbingerShow Maybe I'm still failing to explain well enough. We agree for the most part but seem to be not quite connecting. The network is a positive, or a feature, in the same way the whistle is. It provides aid in a situation where it is needed. It's not harmful in and of itself. But trust is definitely replaceable. We replace it all the time with power to harm. That is why we use contracts instead of verbal agreements. If someone agrees to a contract and then is in breach of contract, the injured party has power to seek redress at their expense. Trust is the knowledge, even falsely, that another individual will not harm you. By giving someone an introduction to another you infuse their relationship with the baseline trust that they have for you. 'Jordan told me to meet this person. I trust Jordan. Jordan must trust them. So, I can trust them.' As the networker, you are combining the acts of connecting people who can help each other and creating trust between them. Forming those connections is definitely a practicable skill, as you said, but that's not quite contradictory to what I was trying to say. Bear with me as I use an analogy. Having the skill of connecting is like having a car and knowing how to drive it, whereas, to borrow your example from the talk, coding in COBOL is like knowing how to do carpentry. With the knowledge of carpentry, you can create things. With the car, you can go to places where there is an opportunity to create things for money. Now, if you have lots of skill in carpentry but only a scooter, you can do good work for those nearby but you can't get to the further opportunities. If you have a very nice car but only basic carpentry skills, you can get to all sorts of places where they need people with carpentry skills but won't be the best one for the job. Most importantly, being highly skilled in both areas is an edge case. As a general rule the number of people who achieve some level of skill is inversely related to a numeric representation of that level. (e.g. Almost everyone passes kindergarten but they are pared down each year until only a few get their PhD.) This tightens further when looking for the intersection of two skills. So, as a general rule, if you are at a company looking to hire someone and are presented someone because they are good at connecting, it says they are more likely to be at a lower level in the creative skills that are what you went looking for in the first place. It doesn't mean you can't get lucky and pull from somewhere high on the curve, just that it's more likely to get someone from lower. The practice of connection as a skill is highly beneficial to the user, but less beneficial to anyone and everyone else.
@@finfan7 The carpenter with the scooter and the guy with the car can become friends and work together. If the carpenter has no network he will be less likely to find a friend with a car. Together they can do more, even if the carpenter isn't the best and the guy doesn't have the best car. They can do more than someone else with the best car with no network, or the best carpenter with no network.
Shame on us for learning, pivoting and becoming highly successful. We should have just sat around and complained on CZcams. Clearly that's a more productive path! /s
This is by far the most helpful and tangible networking advice I’ve heard. I’ve always felt that I screwed myself over in college by not having the capacity to connect with my peers and professors. And even now at 27 I fear that I can’t get into the “right” rooms with the “right” people that can help me secure a place in my field. This advice is a much more organic approach that feels like something I can manage at any age. Thank you!
Talking non stop without even pausing for a moment to think what to say next!
Man this guy is awesome.
ha thanks Sadman!
Excellent presentation!!
I paused this video halfway through and messaged old friends I haven't talked to in a century. I made some meaningful connections with people who I really did miss, so thanks for this video
you're welcome! Do you listen to The Jordan Harbinger Show (podcast) as well?
Awesome talk! I really got a lot out the generosity of your approach!
Really great job Jordan! Love the insights on being ethical and keeping your integrity. That is of utmost importance in all relationships.
Thanks Ben! I'm at The Jordan Harbinger Show (podcast) if you're picking up what I'm putting down :)
Great talk
Nice timing, because the main idea of the topic is something I came to not so long ago. Was really glad to hear concrete advice.
glad you enjoyed this!
I will rewatch this and takes notes - lots and lots of good content.
Thanks! Enjoy!
Jordan recently shot up to become my all-time favorite podcaster, and I love listening his mind-blowing podcasts over and over again, as there is so much information to absorb. The conversations are efficient and aways entertaining. The full show notes, books, links, and other resources in he provides along with each and every episode are well done and every detail is appreciated greatly. The topics covered in this lecture may not be as relevant today, with the distributed workforce, where there is a more level playing field and things are more measured by output.
Don't forget to also do the 6 minutes Networking course if you haven't
I have always been that smart hardworking wierdo and Jordan's talks help me a lot.
nice :) me too, and thanks!
Awesome advise and discussion. Thx!!
Thanks Rick!
I like the energy and pace of your talk. Do you prepare the text of the presentation beforehand or do you improvise on the spot ?
tons of prep
Thanks
Beautiful aranged stage and interesting guest .
thank you!
whats that you say?? you know ERIC SCHMIDT??!
yes, he was on The Jordan Harbinger Show
as an INTJ I feel attacked lmfaoo
...but by a fellow INTJ -tough argument bro ;)
Not sure how to feel about this..
So if we think about the cost of opportunity instead, the speaker pretty much used a phone call/connection and stole opportunity from a more qualified student from getting admission into Michigan.
Stole might be a strong word here, but the discussion I would like to bring up is whether as a society we should push for soft skill > hard skill?
This isn't what happened at all. "Stole" is not only a strong word, it's a fabrication. I'm not sure if you misunderstood or are deliberately mischaracterizing what happened. I'll assume the former.
I wrote a letter in a legal argument format to the Admissions Committee. They let me in for a future year of law school, not the current class.
Nobody had to leave school because I was admitted (of course). Nobody else was more entitled to that spot simply because of their scores. That's not how admissions works. Scores are one element, soft skills and experiences another. I did not have a 'connection' to the admissions committee, nor was any phone call made other than to offer me a place in the class.
I would also argue soft skills, especially when it comes to being admitted to law school > hard skills ANY day of the week. Soft skills and deficiency in that area is actually why I was asked to speak at Google in the first place. :)
@@JordanHarbingerShow I would like to apologize for my remark. Using the word "stole" is not correct and wrong of me.
@@X_platform no problem! thanks for listening & watching :)
THE JORDAN HARBINGER SHOW Thanks for the phenomenal talk. I’m working on translating it from ‘Coders’ to ‘Scientists’!
@@DrBrianKeating 100% the same :)
Is the ex-Barista here ?
ha! didn't make the talk :)
TeslaDan4Freedom
DanielHall4Freedom
TheirName4Freedom
Teaching this is kind of like handing out rape whistles. On the one hand, for those who find use for it, it is extremely useful. It is definitely good for them that they had that tool to help them better their situation. On the other hand, it's a sign that something is seriously wrong when you have to go around handing them out.
In an age where information flows around the world at not quite light speed, why are people having such a hard time connecting that bringing a few names in your contact list makes you better, or even just equally, qualified for a position than someone who is better at it than you by a standard measure?
Should we be encouraging systems where it isn't the person who can best do the job that is hired or promoted but simply the person who can get an 'in' from someone? That's just a few genes away from nepotism.
You're missing the point, but I think it's probably an oversight as opposed to deliberate. You're assuming here that the person doing the connecting isn't as qualified. That's a big assumption, and one that people often make as an excuse to not have to do the connecting, but to assume that since you're keeping your head down, or are skilled, that you deserve the position. You're also assuming that a connector has no value in the network itself. I covered this in the talk, as the network alone has value. In fact, it's MORE valuable than mere skill, as your technical skills are often replaceable, whereas networks largely are unique to the individual. You'd be well-served to rethink your assumptions when it comes to this. Thanks for watching.
@@JordanHarbingerShow Thank you for taking the time to respond.
However, I think my concept may not have been conveyed. The network is the rape whistle. It is valuable and useful, but the need for it is a sign of a different, larger problem. The network is a medium of exchange of information and trust, which is itself a different kind of information about unknown information's. The fact that you bring value to a person or business just by sharing their information is a sign that we have failed to develop a good system for disseminating that information. The fact that the best method we have for disseminating that information can be hacked by having a more ingratiating persona is a flaw, not a feature. Yes, skill can be replaced, but a network full of networkers has little to no skill and therefore can't do much of anything that requires it. Skill is what gets things done, networking is just an inefficient method of acquiring skill by acquiring people. You have sought and found another way to provide value (given out the whistle) but failed to look for a way to make it unnecessary.
I understand this is kind of your shtick and so I'm asking the donkey (not using the animal as an insult; it just fits the metaphor) to help design the engine that turns the cart into a truck, but I hope, on a broader, rational level, you can understand, even if you won't change your whole life based on it.
@@finfan7 Disagree. The network itself IS a feature. Human trust is not replaceable (right now). This isn't simply a transfer of information. You're also assuming networks are formed by personality, not skill. This is also false, as demonstrated by the talk itself. So, while you might be right about efficiency, etc, you're mistaken/wrong about the greater concept at play here. Thanks for watching! -Jordan.
@@JordanHarbingerShow
Maybe I'm still failing to explain well enough. We agree for the most part but seem to be not quite connecting.
The network is a positive, or a feature, in the same way the whistle is. It provides aid in a situation where it is needed. It's not harmful in and of itself.
But trust is definitely replaceable. We replace it all the time with power to harm. That is why we use contracts instead of verbal agreements. If someone agrees to a contract and then is in breach of contract, the injured party has power to seek redress at their expense.
Trust is the knowledge, even falsely, that another individual will not harm you. By giving someone an introduction to another you infuse their relationship with the baseline trust that they have for you. 'Jordan told me to meet this person. I trust Jordan. Jordan must trust them. So, I can trust them.' As the networker, you are combining the acts of connecting people who can help each other and creating trust between them.
Forming those connections is definitely a practicable skill, as you said, but that's not quite contradictory to what I was trying to say. Bear with me as I use an analogy. Having the skill of connecting is like having a car and knowing how to drive it, whereas, to borrow your example from the talk, coding in COBOL is like knowing how to do carpentry. With the knowledge of carpentry, you can create things. With the car, you can go to places where there is an opportunity to create things for money. Now, if you have lots of skill in carpentry but only a scooter, you can do good work for those nearby but you can't get to the further opportunities. If you have a very nice car but only basic carpentry skills, you can get to all sorts of places where they need people with carpentry skills but won't be the best one for the job. Most importantly, being highly skilled in both areas is an edge case. As a general rule the number of people who achieve some level of skill is inversely related to a numeric representation of that level. (e.g. Almost everyone passes kindergarten but they are pared down each year until only a few get their PhD.) This tightens further when looking for the intersection of two skills. So, as a general rule, if you are at a company looking to hire someone and are presented someone because they are good at connecting, it says they are more likely to be at a lower level in the creative skills that are what you went looking for in the first place. It doesn't mean you can't get lucky and pull from somewhere high on the curve, just that it's more likely to get someone from lower. The practice of connection as a skill is highly beneficial to the user, but less beneficial to anyone and everyone else.
@@finfan7 The carpenter with the scooter and the guy with the car can become friends and work together. If the carpenter has no network he will be less likely to find a friend with a car. Together they can do more, even if the carpenter isn't the best and the guy doesn't have the best car. They can do more than someone else with the best car with no network, or the best carpenter with no network.
Fucking pick up artists...mark manson, neil strauss, now this guy...
Shame on us for learning, pivoting and becoming highly successful. We should have just sat around and complained on CZcams. Clearly that's a more productive path! /s