Business is built on a lot of fragile things. Your business consists of your mutual obligations: What others are obliged to do for you, and what you are obliged to do for them.

To that end, of course, the "speed run" strategy for building a business involves roping a whole lot of people into various tenuous obligations, delivering enough on your promises that the whole thing doesn't collapse, and then terminating contact with people as they cease to further your life plans [0].

The survival truth is that if you were going to behave socially like most mammals do, you'd remain shy and hesitant before trying to interact with a stranger - you'd keep physical distance, take a gentle posture, run away if startled, and only gradually get closer. And in a group, you wouldn't try to push other members around too casually, lest they catch on and get you exiled.

But what we keep telling ourselves is to encourage trade with everyone from the first instant, which is ripe for aggressive strategies like the ones depicted in the article, and also more opaquely predatory ones like panhandling, cons, blackmail, or protection rackets. It's so ingrained that we can barely see how toxic and abusive an environment it creates.

You can do business the slow way. It takes a lot longer, you miss a lot more opportunities, and it diminishes your probability of being part of the global elite from "slim" to "none", but you'll also rest easier at night, and you're less likely to be taken in by someone who will use your good nature against you.

[0] http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/comment/column/9497/why-i-rank...

Edit: And I should add that sometimes you can find a good, solid reason to step up and socialize - just, you need to plan it in advance with the understanding that you're going to be making win-wins.

I actually think that the "intent" is what makes is phony and fake, not the skills or techniques employed. I think I use some of these techniques (or "rules of thumbs for conversation" -- albiet not as extreme) with some people I'm friendly with because I genuinely want them to enjoy the conversation and our time together.

I sincerely do not want or expect any favors or benefits from them. If we're in a setting that begets conversation and I know that we don't have tooo much in common, I'm going to go out of my way to make the conversation enjoyable for them, because their enjoyment of the conversation will make the conversation enjoyable for me as well.

The alternative is often either side taking turns about subjects that the other person has no interest in, and those conversations don't do any good for either person.

"The first principle for would-be networkers is to abandon all shame. Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies. Academic research has found that people’s susceptibility to flattery is without limit and beyond satire. In a study published in 1997, B.J. Fogg and Clifford Nass of Stanford University invited people to play a guessing game with a computer, which gave them various types of feedback as they played. Participants who received praise rated both the computer and themselves more highly than those who did not—even those who had been warned beforehand that the machine would compliment them regardless of how well they were doing. Yes, even blatantly insincere, computer-generated flattery works."

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be genuinely interested in what somebody has to say, and still plan to use them later.

Don't kid yourself into thinking they wouldn't do the same for you -- instead, think of it as a mutual agreement to provide services to each other when needed.

More like a mutual agreement to request services from each other when they are required.

E.g. to ask you if you want a particular contract (when it needs to be fulfilled regardless). Not to 'come up' with a contract because your 'bro' is out of work.

I go to work conferences and speak with people about work. Otherwise I seem to have very little in common with them. They are probably not who I would be friends with outside of work, but hey, next time I see them at a conference, its always nice to see a familar face, and I am sure the same thing works for them.

I think you're missing the subtle, tongue-in-cheek British humour in the article.

I must be missing it as well, subtle tongue in cheek humour isn't really the Economists style.

I think the pieces under a byline like Schumpeter have a bit more leeway than, say, a piece in the main body of the magazine.

Examples of what I took to be humour:

"It is a mistake to lecture people on your own pet subjects, as this columnist has discovered."

"Brown-nosing ahead"

You are apparently not a long-time subscriber. The Economist can be a hoot - not in the front-page articles, but there are many well written, funny stories (and they often use innuendo)