Why We Click by Kate Murphy

“I actually wrote this last week before going to my college reunion, so it's timely albeit all over the place. I would probably write it differently in post, but that proves exactly why it's relevant: because I could talk about it for hours and always have something different to bring up.”

Why do you immediately click with some people while others just as inexplicably turn you off? Do people emit vibes? Is it possible to read a room? Are bad habits contagious?

Kate Murphy, author of the international bestseller
You’re Not Listening, answers these and other fascinating questions in Why We Click, the first book that explores the emerging science and outsize impact of interpersonal synchrony, the most consequential social dynamic most people have never heard of. Interpersonal synchrony is the seemingly magical, yet now scientifically documented, tendency of human beings to fall into rhythm and find resonance with one another.

Not only do we subconsciously match one another’s movements, postures, facial expressions, and gestures; recent breakthroughs in technology have revealed we also sync up our heart rates, blood pressure, brainwaves, pupil dilation, and hormonal activity. The result is that emotions, moods, attitudes, and subsequent behaviors can be as infectious as any disease, and can have just as profound an impact on our health and well-being.

Interweaving science, philosophy, literature, history, business management theory, pop-culture, and plenty of relatable, real world examples,
Why We Click explains why being “in sync,” “in tune,” “in step,” and “on the same wavelength” are more than just turns of phrase. From the bedroom to the boardroom and beyond, Murphy reveals with characteristic curiosity, concision, and wit how our instinct to sync with others drives much of our behavior and how our deepest desires—to be known, admired, loved, and connected—are so often thwarted in modern life.

Thanks for reading Words Like Silver! Subscribe for free to support my work.

Subscribe Now

placeholder

Why I Picked It Up

I suppose I'm on sort of a funny wavelength in terms of catching up on reviews of books I've read this year. In many ways, if you've peeked at my list, I've very much gone back to the basics in unraveling what to do and why in regards to all areas of life and optimization: career, fitness, relationships, you name it.

What's most worthwhile? Obviously, an eternal question for everyone, and one that aligns with my personal beliefs that the more I know, the better I can be.

Kate Murphy's book on interpersonal synchrony is her follow up to You're Not Listening, which is the no. 1 book recommendation from Words Like Silver. By that, I mean the most people have told me that they've read it, bought it, given it to friends, hosted book clubs based on it. This book, because of this website, is the one with the biggest exponential network effect beyond me. (I could have a worse legacy.)

Her follow-up deals with similar topics, but isn't quite the same. It's the same situation though: when you encounter someone, what makes you feel close vs. veer away from them. All the little bits of luck, attention, generosity, and general wiring that can make you decide to love or hate them as you get to know—ideally, listen to—them.

In general, when I have one book I champion, I like the sophomore attempt but not quite as much, so I was nervous about this one. Perhaps because of my own familiarity with the types of discussions she had within it, I felt that exact dynamic as expected—but from me, that's all in all still a very positive review.

Some Things You Need to Know About Me Going In

• When people tend to describe me, especially those I know socially, their first word is usually "independent."
• I generally feel like I can have a great conversation with anyone, especially on an intellectual level; for that reason, I'm often what I call a "coffee date" or "phone call" friend that people seek out for deep conversations.
• I'm a floater in that I'm generally friends with a ton of different types of people but not included all that often in specific core clusters. I'm rather happy with that, but that has its own challenges (again.)
• For those reasons, I do sometimes end up frustrated that it feels like people only see—or seek out—certain sides of me rather than letting me be multifaceted. Some of this is my fault, and some of this is theirs. I do think some people are fascinated by me on a surface level then have trouble seeing me as an actual person. In the silliest-sounding way possible, it can actually very hurtful to be reduced by others, even when it's in a way highlighting strengths.
• Because of that and being an identical twin, I'm horribly sensitive to "the idea of you" versus actual you, interchangeability, and being treated as a catalyst/idea rather than an individual.
• My post-grad default is solitude and self-reliance, although I have many friends and people I adore. It’s taken more conscious effort for me to start letting people "in" nowadays.
• I've realized when you've built your whole identity around individuality, etc. like I have, it's not that easy to unravel the knee-jerk fear of dilution that accompanies the beginning of any significant friendship or relationship. I'm getting better at overriding it (in theory.)
• In summary, there are two simultaneous factors that complicate me getting close to someone: there's my sensation of another person and getting to know them, and then there's my sensation of closeness/a relationship itself throwing my independence off balance. In dealing with my weirdness around the latter, I absolutely will (and have) fuck[ed] up the balance.
• Most people will never have the patience to deal with that. But being slow to get to know anyone is also not a bad thing—just a pacing difference—and getting timing right is always tough anyway.
• Relatedly, I do also have a tendency to just tell someone all my flaws at the very beginning and try to scare them off (hahaha.) C'est la vie, lone wolf, etc. etc.
• It would probably benefit me overall to be a little less self-aware, because being able to articulate myself and interests so entirely can be intimidating to others. At least the self-possession makes me very cool overall, and I’m confident in a core “know thyself” level that I love.

Still: you see my dilemma, which sparks a lot of the curiosity I have around connection as a whole and what's next for me.

Deciding What Makes You 'Click' with Someone

For this entire psychological makeup and more, I've always loved reading about synchrony and what happens to us when we really "click" with another person. Knowing who knows you is really the best feeling.

Can you make it more likely to happen? When do you leave a conversation feeling refreshed rather than weighted down? Am I making the person on the other end of my conversation feel intensity or emotional weight, or am I making them actually feel really seen?

Most of my self-consciousness in general is probably related to that final question: I want to be a person who's easy to talk to and kind and generous in it, even if the conversation veers towards hard topics or aspects of disagreement or anything really. I think people like when I challenge them intellectually, but I hope it's in a pleasant way versus a "small doses" way.

What makes you feel like you click with me?

Relatedly, I was recently at my summer camp reunion, where I was talking with someone and extremely jet-lagged. The next day, I was talking with friends at breakfast and said that I'd said (paraphrased),

"You know, I'm really excited to hear about what's going on with you, etc. But in all honesty, I have to have this conversation tomorrow because right now, I'm tired enough that I can feel myself not being a very good listener and you deserve that."

And they laughed at me in pointing out that my phrasing was such a camp counselor answer. Which, yeah. If I can embody that energy all the time, I'd be deeply happy with how I treat others.

Frankly, that was also what I said to anyone who asked me out on a date from about 2021-2024: that I wasn't in a good place to be a good listener to the person on the other side, and that had nothing to do with them. Plenty of people around me say I should have been more selfish in that. Maybe they're right. But feeling yourself "click" with someone is obviously a two-way street that involves openness from both people, and I'm sensitive to when I'm being a bad listener, so maybe that's still about me.

I do believe in timing in that sense though because if I believed I wasn't going to meet my person yet, my mind wasn't going to change until I randomly decided to make it “the right time”—and maybe I needed to be alone to get to that switch. Choice has a lot to do with the success of any relationship, but headspace does matter.

There are other topics that orbit the book too. For example, I've been reading a ton of Steinbeck and one of his fascinations is when the group influence supersedes the individual, and vice versa. There's Cultish, in how you label yourself. How to Be Multiple, in how you define yourself versus others. Even relationship-focused self-help like The Love Prescription that talk about "bids for connection" and how every trajectory is largely determined by how you respond to each; there's an exact, lab-tracked ratio determining how often you need to positively vs. negatively respond to someone's attempt to connect with you before they mentally check out. You have to want to click because a lot of the mechanisms that make you do so require that opt-in. (Same mechanism that cuts through paradox of choice.)

So this book was very on the nose for my personal experiences and struggles with connection, wanting but repelling it, syncing, etc.

About the Book

The book covers plenty, with discussions of why we feel the instinct to sync at all, what makes us sync with others, how we mirror body language, the necessity of this all happening in real life, how we fill in the gaps of not knowing everything about someone, etc. It’s not about one type of relationship, but behaviors can carry over (workplace, romantic, platonic, etc.)

It talks about how this synchrony is affected on a group level even, like how and why adding in "one bad apple" to a staff can shift the whole working dynamic.

There’s of course overlap with the listening book, but it focuses more on the wavelength and feeling than the mechanisms. The unconscious influences specifically of connection, if you will. That blissful sense that someone sees you and gets you, which various authors argue over.

Syncing in Conversation and Presence

Of course, I love all the data backing up all of this which was that essentially you pretty much always get better results being cooperative and calm and kind, even when that energy's not recognized or reciprocated.

“'I became very aware that if you're depressed or angry, the dangerous thing is that you are never going to be in a room that you are not in, so you could be walking around making everyone depressed or angry, and you'll think that's just how the world is.'”

In that same study, it also found that it was easier to think of people who upset you or make you angry rather than people who make you happy.

I actually have had that conversation with an O’ahu friend who's wired like I am—both quieter, fond of Irish goodbyes, frequent floaters—about how sometimes it feels that the people who are most volatile (i.e. being shitty to others one night but then being the life of the party the next) can be more memorable and thus more included in various friend groups. Or why people can be so attracted to partners who swing between extreme highs and lows.

Is it that the positive night genuinely balances out the negative? Or is it that the intermittent reward aspect makes people addicted to the dopamine high of when it's good in contrast? Or are those people simply radiating better, more contagious energy?

“What fascinates Eisenkraft is not that we have some consistency in how we feel, what we call personality, but the curious question of whether we have a similar consistency in how we make other people feel, which he calls affective presence. Basically, do we have an intrinsic vibe to which the world syncs so it becomes a happier, sadder, or angrier place?”

If you're by default more reserved (like I am), then it can occasionally feel like you can only be around people when you're in one specific mode of bubbly because your default 'positive' is more likely to be read as neutral. People might only remember emotions you explicitly share when they’re negative—so you don’t want to shift the impression. I suppose my main social worry is that if people mostly seek me out when they need a deep conversation or to cry to me or to be intellectually stoked or whatever it might be, they might only associate me with a certain amount of emotional or cognitive weight that doesn’t need to be there. I’ve been told too many times I’m intense, even though I know I have a lighter side too they’re not seeing.

“'There's a little bit of fear to that because I don't know if I can change it,' said Eisenkraft.”

I'd say the scary part about this book is that it does confirm my desire to hide myself away whenever I'm not entirely 100 percent blissful or giddy because I don't want to affect the mood or bring down the gathering if I'm tired. It gives a scientific basis for canceling the plans because someone could get the wrong impression of you.

Which, in hindsight—yeah. I’ve canceled dates for that reason before. And I was probably right in not actively dating during the tunnel vision of my peak book deal intensity. When you’re presenting very limited information about yourself to others that can affect their own generosity in seeing you—if you're with someone who's already very discerning or suspicious or negative-slanting or whatever, you might just intensify their tendency to look for the negatives. If I think I'm bringing down the vibe, I'm...probably right, but sometimes you also have to make the call to put yourself around people anyway because they’ll raise you to their level. It’s a coin-toss, which is why approximately 80 percent of our brains are devoted to processing social information — it’s so much to parse at any given time.

“Just because you're in sync with someone today doesn't necessarily mean you'll sync up again tomorrow. As mentioned earlier, friends, families, colleagues, and lovers move into and out of synchrony all the time. The relationships that last are those where you are in sync more often than you are not. Grace is riding the tide.”

In general, I hold the belief that there's a baseline of compatibility required to sync with someone—as some people are genuinely so dissimilar to each other that it takes ridiculous amounts of effort—but that once you meet at least that baseline, the determining aspect of a relationship is active choice. Salience, framing, commitment. Like the book says: riding the wave and believing in different versions of the self that appear at different times.

One of my favorite books of the year, Superbloom, talks about this in terms of similarity vs. dissimilarity cascades and what you end up looking for throughout conversations and interactions (ideally in-person.) If you decide you're looking for similarity, you'll find it—and likely be a better listener. If you're looking for reasons to dislike someone or be suspicious, you'll find those too. Look for the best in someone, or look for the worst, but your perception might have more to do with you than them.

Frankly, this also goes along with certain moral beliefs of mine. Like, I rarely completely despise anyone (although like all people, I have my preferences) because I can nearly always see plenty of good.

I do dislike anyone ever believing that they can ever actually be somehow "better" than another person though. I also think that one of the worst things we've done societally is to look down on people changing their minds. Timing, context, and background all matter in shaping someone's worldview, and therefore you shouldn't close yourself off to a new conversation or interaction. Basically, I never write anyone off entirely or assume that someone can't change my mind in return.

I operate in the philosophy of "be curious, not judgmental" (Walt Whitman via Ted Lasso.) So I do worry that when I'm having these broad, existential, thoughtful kinds of talks with others that they might assume I'm judgmental by default. I like to have challenging conversations or say things as I perceive them, but I'm really just wondering. I think I’m honest enough to be somewhat startling to people by accident, but not in a blunt or cutting way.

Of course, projection and self-fulfilling prophecy are constant fascinations of mine, and this book dissects them so concretely.

“Basically, [projective identification] is the idea that people often subconsciously project their unwanted or intolerable emotions onto other people so that the receiver feels and subsequently behaves as if those emotions are their own.”

“German researchers have found that people who have been primed with negative information about someone are less likely to subconsciously mimic their facial expressions and thus achieve emotional resonance and connection.”

(One of the most beautiful and admirable aspects of the book talked about how therapists have to take measures to avoid being affected by patients' projections.)

“Research suggests that there is a bidirectional relationship between the strength of someone's instinct to sync and empathy. The more often and closely you sync with people, the more empathetic you are, and vice versa.”

“Laboratory experiments suggest that when people are anxious, self-centered, or in conflict while engaging in synchronous tasks, they are less likely to develop physiological or neural linkages or experience the attendant emotional benefits. Again, it's this idea that an inner-directed, self-interested, or self-absorbed focus subverts interpersonal synchrony.”

The Rhythms & Activities of Syncing

I'm a dancer. I love it; it's my most "pure" hobby in that I will never be all that incredible at it—I've had too much of a hiatus, don't get to classes enough, can't train the way I would have when I was younger—but I've always loved all the studies that point to how dancing syncs our brain waves with those around us (which is why dance floors and whatnot feel so good.)

Rhythmic activities too, like marching for soldiers and finger-tapping a drum, help with this synchrony. Which is why it's used in the military, evidence for why I frequently say that the military is "very good at what it does." In terms of group-ties, loyalty, identification, etc. its structures are timeless and brilliant in forging genuine bonds. At the end of the day, this kind of social cohesion is an incredibly powerful force.

“'The whole point of breaking everybody down and building them back up together as one cohesive, coordinated unit was to create a sense of 1) you will obey an order without questioning and 2) you will lay down your life if told to do so.'”

These rhythm-based fun facts are in so many books, and I literally never get tired of them. But Kate Murphy goes deeper, unpacking the why in a way that I haven't experienced.

“Your brain also likes the predictability of synchronized activities because it doesn't have to waste cognitive resources thinking about what people around you are going to do next...Predictability puts us in our happy place because thinking is metabolically expensive. The brain takes up only 2 percent of our body weight yet consumes a whopping 20 percent of our calories. Since our survival has historically depended on judicious use of resources, we instinctively like anything that lets us cognitively coast. It's also why we love being right and hate being wrong. Wrong means you need to stoke the cerebral furnace and try again.”

“Feelings of connection are typically stronger the more similar, seamless, and simultaneous people's behaviors and underlying neurological rhythms.”

Activities that promote interpersonal synchrony, according to the book, also include singing in a choir, attending line dancing classes, joining a knitting or running club, volunteering someplace with coordinated tasks.

Interestingly enough, the book also notes that couples who do household chores together rather than divvying them up tend to have greater marital satisfaction, especially if set to music.

Of course, all people are different people, but I still largely agree with all these points because because rhythm points to one of the aspects I love most: that the people I tend to feel the most myself around are those I can be "quiet together" with.

Of course, I love a good and deep conversation with someone, but I also love the genuine comfort of feeling understood enough to be able to do our own thing in our own space without feeling pressure to be interacting the whole time. Which is probably why I'll always default to quiet and not assume I'm sacrificing closeness to do so. At some point, I'll be excited to just be in a routine with someone.

But you are choosing how you see this sense of synchrony because you can view that alignment as distance or as love. The beginning of that build is just the trust aspect because your label or positive/negative choice shifts how you view the entire interaction.

“Entrenched neural patterns aren't as easily entrained to external rhythms. Put another way, neural synchrony requires a degree of flexibility or plasticity in one's thinking.”

Overall Thoughts

I loved that Why We Click brought in so many examples, studies, fun facts, etc. It's the type of rich book that has plenty I will cite and discuss absolutely forever, and those are my favorite. (Cue my next "meaningful conversation" that gets our brain waves in sync?)

So many related books beyond those I've already mentioned too, like The Influential Mind by Tali Sharot or Connected by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, which talks about how ideas, moods, etc. ripple throughout social networks before you can even realize what's affecting you.

There are so many aspects of this book and conversation (about conversations—haha) that align with other curiosities of mine: self-reliance, Stoicism, self-fulfilling prophecy, group vs. individual levels, listening, polarization, in-real-life experience, and more. How tricky trust and calibration can be, and how active our choice is in knowing anyone whatsoever.

I always think about who you feel like actually knows or “gets” you, or who you feel the most yourself around.

I have a lot I'm decent at in terms of interacting with others, and a lot I could get better at. I like who I talk to and what I talk about, but it would be great and cool to feel myself getting better at establishing that "click" and making people feel heard/seen/whatever enough to really connect. Then again, one of my theories has always been that reading books is a way in which we "listen" and become more open, so I suppose I can indirectly do this by recommending the right book at the right time for someone.

A lot of these curiosities are both existential and universal, so they'll resonate with plenty of people interrogating all this on a personal level. For me, I'm most interested in it within the self-aware lens of analyzing how much independence is great for me/crucial for my identity versus what is me not consciously opening up enough in recent years.

In some arenas, that block will take me more energy to push past; that's just my personality type, and I’ve almost cursed myself by being conscious of it. Long-term, it’s probably for the best that I recognize my own patterns, even if I think they make me sometimes lonely. Some people can just cluster together in a group message or pick out people to date or whatever it might be. I can’t just snap my fingers and feel like I know or trust someone immediately. It takes time and history, and I was probably a little better at letting those develop when I was younger.

I do think you can be active in that sense versus assuming we just feel how we feel without agency, and right now I don’t want to miss out on potentially getting to know people by waiting for a "click" that won't come without my effort. So the book's a solid start at some of the backing behind that feeling, which is usually what pushes me into knowing what to do with myself next.

Right now, I'm also considering some of the bigger social questions that will define my next year or so: whether and when to move, where to go, who are the people I would structure decisions around, which versions of myself feel most like me, etc. All of which have to do with that initial click.

For fans of:

You're Not Listening by Kate Murphy; The Influential Mind by Tali Sharot; Connected by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler; Superbloom by Nicholas Carr; How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Feldman Barrett; The Chemistry Between Us by Larry Young PhD and Brian Alexander; The Molecule of More by Daniel Z. Lieberman and Michael E. Long; Cultish by Amanda Montell; The Conditions of Will by Jessa Hastings; etc.

Out in January, so no page excerpt yet!