How to Impress Friends and Win People (with trivia)
Owing to an exhausted list of accessible virtual loisirs, I recently found myself playing trivia with friends over at protobowl.com. ProtoBowl draws from a bank of over 90 000 pyramidal quizbowl questions, whose hints are given in a sentence progressing from challenging to obvious, such that contestants are rewarded for buzzing in early based on more obscure information, but most answers are obvious once the full question is read.
A couple of family friends introduced me to the game, and I promptly shared with several others thereafter. Of course, this was only because I was very good at the game. After one session, one of my friends asked me how I knew so much about philosophy. I responded saying that I read a lot of books when I was younger and that I watched some philosophy videos from time to time. I neglected to mention that the philosophy books I read were mostly of the For Dummies variety, and that the only philosophy videos were from the Crash Course YouTube channel, though I did slide in a joke about reading derivative works as opposed to seminal materials.
This was notable because I knew next to nothing about philosophy. In truth, I had but superficial knowledge about the categories that I materially outscored my friends in: Fine Arts, History, Mythology, Philosophy, and Social Science; this is presuming I have more than a cursory understanding of Literature. Disregarding the possibility that my STEM/corporate oriented friends are perhaps simply more deficient in the liberal arts, I somehow swindled the game and everyone playing it into believing I was an awesome man of culture with a prodigious wealth of knowledge.
As another one of my friends was quick to point out afterwards however, this was just trivia, the value of which can be appraised through its etymology. In my case, this was mostly true. For example, the extent of my philosophy knowledge stopped a little past picking up Existential Comics punchlines, just short of understanding if someone’s quote is relevant or just impressive, and long before applying ideas or principles to guide decision making. Fortunately for poseurs like me, it’s generally assumed that superficial knowledge of a topic exhibited confidently and aptly is representative of a larger body of knowledge, like the submerged portion of an iceberg.
Thus, when employed correctly, trivial knowledge can increase how the wielder is perceived by those around them, because it implies a more profound understanding. This marks the part of the post that will begin addressing the title and main subject, after what seem like increasingly self-indulgent openings. How does one apply trivia, or whatever knowledge they have, to best benefit their ostensive cultural and academic erudition, outside of the specialized realm of quizbowl competitions?
Firstly, it’s important to determine why, at a glance, bits of trivia can be more impressive than a moderate understanding of a topic. The Superbowl is a good example. Without any knowledge of football, it takes perhaps fifteen minutes of concentrated reading to understand the basics of the sport and scoring system, most of which will have to be committed to memory, since there hasn’t been adequate repetition to internalize the information. This is exclusive of the technicalities and quirks, which will likely be the conversation at a Superbowl party. No one is wondering how many points a touchdown scores, and in the case that someone is, it will be quickly addressed by someone more knowledgeable.
Instead of learning the rules of football, five minutes could be much better spent reading the New York Times coverage of the Superbowl, which seems to have been made expressly for this purpose. These not only lend context and perspective, but also provide a few talking points with the avid fans. Which team has won what, who David and Goliath are, and a few numbers to throw around, but nothing requiring mental effort.
In conversation at this viewing party, sharing factoids about the number of teams who’ve won back-to-back Superbowls or the immense playoff experience of the Chiefs is much more appropriate than one about how much an interception is worth. Furthermore, it suggests interest and knowledge of the sport; someone there for the food and company, completely uninterested in the theatrics behind grown men throwing around inflated pigskin in a modern-day Colosseum wouldn’t know these things.
This is fully applicable to most other subjects. Why would someone who hasn’t studied philosophy know that Nietzsche spent the final ten years of his life in the care of his mother and sister after a mental collapse? Why would someone who doesn’t watch opera know that the “fat lady singing” is Brünnhilde from Wagner’s Ring Cycle? Why would someone who doesn’t read know that Fitzgerald was a raging alcoholic with unresolved sexual insecurities?
However, it’s important to flaunt trivia appropriately, interjecting only when the situation calls for it. No one wants to hear from the smartest person in the room talk constantly, so it’s necessary to pick the biggest comments and deliver those with aplomb. Perhaps more imperative still is to judiciously avoid protracted conversations about the fact mentioned, lest it become obvious there is no substance behind it.
The subsequent step is to employ knowledge to steer the conversation towards an area where the speaker has more information. In the context of the most recent Superbowl, this could be repeating the stats from the New York Times summary as prompted and saying “Mmm, yes, is Tom Brady the GOAT now?”, until an opportunity arises, depending on the expertise. If music, then The Weekend. If domestic violence, then Antonio Brown. If racial injustice, then the Chiefs and perhaps Colin Kaepernick. If Trump, then Tom Brady; also the Chiefs and Colin Kaepernick, but unlikely. What this does is conflate trivial knowledge on football with informed thought on any other subject, so long as the execution is smooth.
The tricky part is then acquiring this trivia. For that, I have no easy answers. I read an immense amount of books when I was younger, and have a penchant for Wikipedia rabbit holes, the perfect storm for slowly accumulating useless information. As these facts accumulate however, connections start appearing between then, causing them to solidify and become harder to forget.
Nietzsche is associated with Nazism because his sister abridged his writings after his death to align with her ultra-nationalist beliefs. Wagner’s famous opera cycle also contained the extremely well-known Ride of the Valkyries and Bridal Chorus. New information is categorized and tied together with the old for safe storage and easy retrieval at a later date.
So pay attention to interesting things across various fields. Connect them to preexisting frameworks as much as possible. Impress friends and win people. Read more. Facts from good books come prepackaged with narrative and context, making them more difficult to forget. I have Fitzgerald profiled because I enjoy reading, my one area of, perhaps meager, depth. Not because of any personal connection to his ailments.
