So I read Josh Hawley's talk from the National Conservative Movement. It's an interesting talk. I mean, much of it I agree with. Every time he attacks the left, I agree. Much of his talk was about manhood, what it means. Well, he never really said what it means to be a man. He talked about manly virtues, which are virtues. And I do think they're associated with masculinity. But he mainly spent the time, as usual, as what these people do, attacking the left's view and attempts of the left to bring down manhood, if you will, and masculinity, and the virtues of masculinity. And in that context, of course, he went after capitalism, the market economy. This is quoting from him. In this country, we are more than mere consumers. We are being the makers of great and mighty things, and we shall be again. So we're not anymore. We don't make great and mighty things anymore. We don't make, I don't know, iPhones. I guess they're made in China, technically. It's very, very Marxist materialist perspective. We don't make stuff anymore. I wonder how we consume so much. It's really an interesting question. How come we can consume so much if we don't make anything? I never understood how people think that works. I don't think Harley does this for votes. I don't think Harley is about the votes. I think Harley is an ideologue, or at least has become a consistent ideologue. He has figured out, certainly, when he ran for president, and not for president, when he ran for the Senate, he was already this. He was already arguing against individualism, wailing against classical liberalism. No, the thing about Josh Harley that you have to respect and the thing about Josh Harley that should make you really scared of Josh Harley is that he isn't just doing it for the votes. Marco Rubio is. Marco Rubio will just say whatever he thinks will get him elected. Ted Cruz is, although we'll see Ted Cruz is challenged. But Josh Harley is a true believer. He is super religious. He's super collectivist. He is dedicated to this conservative nationalism. He was dedicated to Trump. And he is the natural heir. As an intellectual to Trumpism, he will make it much more consistent. So Josh Harley is truly scary. And I fear there's a good chance he becomes president one day. And I think he's the kind of guy who could really do a lot of damage to this country. Deep, deep damage that will be very hard for this country to recover from. Yeah, Harley's different from Pence. He's much worse than Pence, much worse than Pence. He continues. He says the DC experts will say it's impossible. Better to outsource our production to China or Mexico or other places where labor is cheap. But free labor and slave labor should never be put to an even plane. Wait a minute, in Mexico, labor is slave labor? Does he really know what slave labor is? We could argue about some labor in China. But Mexico, slave labor, really? No, much worse than Biden. Much, much, much, much worse than Biden. Biden will not do lasting damage in the way that a Josh Harley could do lasting damage. Or in the way Trump did lasting damage to this country. He quotes Teddy Roosevelt as saying, I am for business, but I am for manhood first. And business is an adjunct to manhood. What does that mean? We must make every effort to restore vibrant manufacturing secretary in this country that can employ working men at living wages, wages that can feed a family and support a community. And we can start by requiring that at least half of all goods and supplies, critical to national security, be made in the United States. What is critical to national security? The Trump administration tried to claim that building cars was critical to national security. If that's true, everything is critical to national security. This is, I don't understand. I really don't understand this. Maybe you guys can enlight me. Maybe somebody in the super chat can enlight me. Don't you see that this is worse than Biden? Because this is from the right. That if this is what the right stands for, then there is no opposition to statism. And that makes it a million times worse. That Biden is just what the left has always been. But the right used to be about at least a semblance, lip service, to freedom, to markets. At least they gave it lip service. Now they don't. Now they're just the statist as the left, or almost the statist of the left. I think they're more statist than the left. And I think their statism was more powerful than the left. And you don't get that that is worse than the Biden form of statism, which is just one of the male leftism. It's stunning to me. It's stunning to me that instead of trying to save the right from the collectivists, from the fascists, from the religionists, from the statists, the nationalists, you want to join them because of your hatred of the left. That's just stunning, just stunning. It shows how shallow the base for individualism is, how shallow the foundation of those who advocate for individualism are when they can so easily flip, so easily turn their back on individualism, on freedom, on the founding fathers, on the very nature of this country, on the very basis of this country, to join his arm and link up as brothers with statists and nationalists and collectivists. Because the left is worse. It's what has made me so utterly pessimistic over the last five, six years to see the small, but what I thought was committed, individualist movements out there, just lose it, lose it and embrace collectivism, or embrace the collectivists. Lose it and forget what positive values we're actually fighting for. Instead of dedicating oneself completely to what you're fighting against and teaming up with some of our worst enemies. It's what I've been riling against and trying to convince you against for five years. It's why I have lost so many subscribers. It's why so few people, ultimately in the big picture, watch these videos. It's because there is no, there's nobody dedicated anymore to individualism, to the positive, to capitalism, to freedom.  So we team up with the devil on the right. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching, show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


mae'r gaelwch ar y foundation Lydziadol Cymru. Mae'n ganddo 8 ymol iawn, ac rydyn ni'n gweithio i'r gaelwch oherwydd yn Gweithredu yma, mae'r hwn yn ddefnyddio'r gweithio'r gweithredu are being trained and developed and he's going to talk about strategic leadership in general and also the key thing that interests us about technology in the wider sense Certainly if you ever want to come to Australia we need you to So over to you Thank you very much Steph ddydd eich ddweud o'r ddifudio a'r ddechrau yn teulu, ond yn ymlaen i'r llwyaf yn y cyfrifol fellyaf. Mae'r ddweud yn cyffredig i ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o rhan o'r unigol a'r fydd iawn yn ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Llanogrym yw Datblygu Cyfrig. Mae'n mefyddo i'n meddwl i y Casio Baiin Llywodraeth Cynllun o whetheriaeth ac mae'n hyffordd unrhyw o ddweud i'r syniad i��udoli'r hwn yn brickwyr 100 o 40 o'r meddwl ac mae'n bwysig am collud peirio y Llywodraeth Cynllun. Rwy'n rhaid i ddweud yach. honestywn i'r hwn i ddweud gyda Llywodraeth Cynllun. Mae ei gallwn edrych 160 unigfyrsad, a'r cyflawnol a'r swg. Felly, we train and develop people at all levels of leadership, not just senior leadership, and this issue we're going to talk about is not just about those at the top, it's about how to create a culture of innovation. I think ALT actually pinched this from me, because your title of your conference was produced just after I'd actually developed this with David Eastwood, which was leadership in a cold climate, leading when the past is no guide to the future. And I think that's absolutely fundamental point here that certainly in the UK and maybe many other parts of the world, we've actually, in terms of, you know, although you might say my business in leadership foundation is about learning, we've actually got to encourage unlearning of how we've done things. It's very interesting, and I'm now going to forget who wrote it, but I can tell you afterwards, not probably as long ago by Harvard about disruptive innovation in universities. I can give you the details later. Some of you may know it. It's been recently been published, and that's what we probably need. We, as a leadership foundation, did quite a lot of research into leadership and management in universities, and what we came up with was a quite simple concept, which is called the agile university. And we felt that a lot of universities were rather in agile. Some may think this is a positive, because, you know, in the UK we've been doing it for 800 years, why should we change? But there is actually a need to look at agility in universities without throwing out the whole concept of what a university is. And we came up with three things, and those three things were, first of all, new business models for universities, and certainly in the UK, and particularly in England, a whole process of government, politician change, white paper change is driving us to different business models. Secondly, creativity and innovation, and I want to come on to that in a moment. And thirdly, we felt what was critical was a more strategic approach to technology. And to that end, working with JISC, and I'm pleased to see Malcolm bring it up there, we actually worked together with the Joint Information Systems Committee, JISC, a two, three years ago now, to do a study on all about integration to technology and strategic use of technology. And really what came out of this was rather disappointing. The report concluded that managers who have combined a deep understanding of technology with senior management experience were made uncommon in the sector. And that I think, and if we go on to another quote from the report which we did with JISC, technology can operate at three levels. It can operate at a transformational level. It can operate as a strategic enabler and as an operational enabler. And the evidence was that it was largely as an operational enabler. And the third conclusion was that there are significant shortcomings in the capability of senior management teams to identify and exploit the full strategic potential of technology. Malcolm may disagree, but I think if we did that survey today, the results would not be very different. They'd be just the same. And so what we then did, and it's literally being launched this month, and all the details will come up, is we got together with JISC to work through this whole issue, the importance of ICT to strategic leadership. We built a model, all this is within the toolkit, there'll be a reference moment where you can get details of it. A model was built, and particularly important in that model, are issues around strategic leadership, ICT governance and communications and engagement, critical issues in leadership. And working through that process, we developed working with Nottingham University, a strategic ICT toolkit, which in a sense is an opportunity for any university management team, leadership team, to look at itself in the mirror about its use of technology. And that is where, I don't know, Julie, whether people have copies of all, or they have access to all of these slides, don't they? So that is, it's actually in transition from being a toolkit that's being developed and worked on to one which will be hosted. And I think we may well now be in a situation where JISC, in Fened, is hosting it, but it is available there. So my first and main point is that if we are to be moving, and many institutions I think will need to, perhaps in a more step change way in terms of the transformation of the institution technology, and a more strategic use of technology has to play a key part. I said I would move on, for the second part, to broader issues of innovation in universities. I've got a depressing quote from our Minister, our Secretary of State, Vince Cable, speaking at our funding council, HEFC funding council conference in April of this year. And it's worse just reflecting what the politicians view was at the time. I expect to see in the university sector face for the onset of more competition and more demanding students a ferment of creative thinking on how to redesign core structures and manage major change among staff so as to promote higher quality but lower cost teaching. I may be missing something he said, but I haven't seen much evidence of this. And I think a real challenge for us in the sector is, because it's not right, that was actually, I don't think it particularly goes on analysis, and we know in our own institutions that a lot of ferment is taking place just because we're being driven by huge changes. But the view from outside, in a sense, is that the ferment isn't there. And I think we have to think about different styles of leadership. On the left hand side is a traditional hierarchical leader, higher education institution with the sort of focus on senior leadership at the top in a hierarchical way. I came eight years ago from not from within higher education. I was surprised how hierarchical in the UK the leadership of universities is. A traditional leadership. And I think, and I'm seeing evidence of it, that we have to move to a new kind of model, which is the picture on the right hand side in the sense of the dotted line is what is encompassing the institution. And it's a dotted line because it is porous. Things can move both ways. The L being leadership, that role of leadership, in my view, is a more multidirectional one. And that is a phrase used in an essay that was produced by, we worked quite closely with the American Council for Education, and they did a transatlantic dialogue a few months ago between European and, in fact, Canadian and American leaders in higher education, looking at the kind of leadership model that was necessary. And they came up with something which they called multidirectional, i.e. your leader is not at the top, your leader actually in transcendencies going around the perimeter all the time, engaging externally with stakeholders, obviously internally with the institution itself, but actually working more in an interpretative role, a sense-making role, rather than a traditional hierarchical role. And in fact, we're about to publish, we've done quite a lot of research leadership foundation, you can find it on our website. And one of the most interesting bits of research I think which we're about to publish is on academic leadership in the new context. And it's done by Professor Jonathan Gosling, who runs a leadership centre at Exeter University. And he comes up with this concept of leadership by dialogue. And in other words, we're not about to managerialise universities because the world is sending us into a more commercially driven environment. But we are in that different environment and we have to adapt approaches to leadership that work for it. And in fact, another piece of research that you'll find on our website, which is one of the most popular bits we've done a few years ago by Dr Celia Whitchurch of the Institute of Education. And that looks at the relationship between academic and professional leaders in higher education. And she creates, finds significant encouraging evidence of the growth of the positive relationship between academic and professional leaders and the role in creating, they create a sort of third space between academic and professional. And that can be an extremely creative space, debunking the traditional view that the administrators were just well there to get in the way. I actually not long ago banned my own team, my own staff for using a word about what's so often used in this sector about people who aren't academic or professional staff. Professional staff are often called and support staff non-academics. And my view is no one should be defined by what they can't, what they don't do. And that may be people involved in technology, may be people involved in administration, HR, finance. They are not non-academics, they are professionals. And in terms of innovation in institutions and creating a climate where there will be buy-in, opening up these relationships is, I think, really important. The other thing which is important is about how entrepreneurial we are as institutions. There are some superbly entrepreneurial institutions. There are equally institutions who somehow don't quite create that sense of excitement about change. And interestingly, I was prompted to use this very old quote from Rosabeth Moscanter, one of the gurus of leadership. Actually, I heard her speak a year or so in London, and she was just as inspirational as ever. And there's that thing about entrepreneurs in her famous book, Change Masters, how entrepreneurs always operate at the edge of their competence, focusing more on their resources and attention on what they do not yet know and on controlling what they already know. They measure themselves not by the standards of the past, but by the visions of the future. And they don't allow the past, remember that quote earlier about leadership in a cold climate, they don't allow the past to serve as a restraint on the future. Ask yourself personally where you are on that spectrum. Are you someone who knows that that's the way to operate? Ask yourself also whether you're senior top leaders in your institution, where they are on that spectrum. And the other thing that we've done a lot of work of in the Leadership Foundation is collaborative leadership. It's not, again, something that is easily done. Actually, all of us know, I think, if we're in any kind of management position, the more kind of control we have over something, the easier it is. And once we've got to have partners and collaboration, it just becomes more difficult. But the truth is, in the 21st century, second decade, collaborative leadership is utterly important. Indeed, going back to what I was talking about on strategic use of technology, it is about getting a collaborative approach across the institution to the use of technology and the strategic application of it that matters. But this, which is from a lovely book, which is very short, written by two people who really understand the university system in the UK, one of them, Sir Graham Davis, was the vice-charts of London University. It's called Herding Cats. Some of you may have seen the film Herding Cats. Yes, you have. It's about two minutes long. It's actually Herding Cats across the prairie. And this is, quote, and it's just so true. And these are all quotes from people in the sector in the UK. It's really hard to get people to understand why collaboration is so important. I think this is awesome. They can acknowledge this intellectually, but every fibre in their body and their experience and their history is pointing diametrically in the other direction. And to this other point, we do find a lot of silos in higher education. We continuously underestimate the tendency, inability of individuals and groups to silos themselves in our sector. And I think these are absolutely crucial issues. I mean, you could disagree with this. You could say, I don't need to go this way in my institution. But the experience we have from eight intensive years of working with growing leaders within higher education, doing quite a lot of research, this collaborative leadership, partnership leadership is absolutely crucial. Again, to skip really most of the last little bit. It's not absolutely fundamental, but just look at the headlines. And that is, you know, most countries, certainly in the western world at the moment, and certainly the UK is facing enormous changes to its higher education system, whether it to do with funding or simply political threats and pressures. Now, Sengar again goes back a long way, 1990, Peter Sengar is worth reading about how you respond to major change. And he came up with three elegant concepts. Haven't got time to go in all detail, but he said we responded three ways. First is reactive. I was parodying it, I would say, that stopping ordering paper clips. But in other words, it's cutting costs, redundancies, et cetera. Adaptive is about fundamental restructuring of the institution. And that is going on certainly in higher education institutions in the UK at the moment. Generative is a very interesting approach to change. Generative is saying the real answer to dealing with major change is whatever field you're in, this isn't a part of higher education. Imagine it's a game you're playing.  And the best way to describe the generative approach is the winners are those who adapt and change the game, create a new playing field and win on it, as opposed to continuously trying to win on the existing playing field. And that's very hard, but it comes back to this whole issue of innovation. And what I want to conclude on is really trying to help us to think about our institutions in a different way. I mean, the other day, my director of research, who also teaches on our top management programme, said, I think we need to drop a term. Tradition, well, when I came into this sector, I was told you must not refer to a university as an organisation. A university is an institution, in the right sense of the word. And so we had higher education institutions, but we need to change it because of the growth of the private sector, private providers, and maybe the way the government's driving university into perhaps almost a kind of bipolar system of providers on the one hand and more research based on the other. She said we should perhaps call it no longer HEIs, but HEPs, higher education providers. Well, I don't think that's enough. I think we, I'm just going through. It's an interesting quote from a book by Sir David Watson, who was Vice-Chancellor of Brighton University Institute of Education has worked a lot with us. And it's actually linked to the church, but it was drawing a distinction between an organisation and an institution. An organisation exists to get something done and requires management. By the institution, in this sense, this is what universities are, is less concrete, is largely held together by people in the mind. It is a sort of set of fantasies of projections of those associated with it. It is what makes a university so rich. But I wonder whether we will be saying they're all institutions in 10 years' time. And I think we're going to have higher education institutions. We're going to have higher education providers who will be much more teaching led and will have higher education organisations. So I think there are huge opportunities for the sector, but I think we battle against a lot of issues which are about trying to break down boundaries, trying to see new models. There's one other thing that gets in the way of change. I do credit this to the Harvard Business Review. I do like it. I think it's quite typical. For the meeting, I need a copy of the agenda, the hidden agenda and my own twisted personal agenda. Now, you've never seen anyone like that, have you? But the truth is that we also run quite political organisations with a small p. So how am I concluding? This has all been about strategy, being the heart of strategy for transforming universities, but it's also been about innovation. And I think we need to work very hard at whatever level we work. This isn't just a talk for vice-chancelors or pro-vice-chancelors, but breaking out of silos, breaking boundaries down, crossing new boundaries, creating new paradigms, new models of what universities or departments or faculties or whatever should be, and encouraging a bit of disruptive innovation. And back to where I started in terms of our cold climate, we do need to encourage some unlearning of attitudes, not just about technology or not recognising the value of technology, but unlearning in terms of the overall approach to how we create innovation. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Colleys, if you want to put your hands up in the room so we can start to get the mic to you and while we take the first question online, do you want to come and say it? It's a long one. Is that a yes? No, do you want to come here? Can you come up here? It's not working. Okay. Would you like to ask a question? Can you take it to her, please? Well, I would get this one working. Vicky McGarvey from Nottingham Trent University, and thank you for your very interesting and thought-provoking presentation. I just wondered with respect to the issues between, or the tensions between academic staff and professional services, with respect to the discussions that have gone under the Times Higher Education Supplement recently. I think it's the University of Northampton that are making staff redundant there, and this emphasis on putting resources into the teaching community because that's why students come to universities is because of the teaching, not necessarily because of the administration. I just wondered how you actually deal with those kind of tensions and whether they can be reconciled. You can't be completely reconciled because they're about sharing out a smaller cake, which is why we're going through so much change in the sector over the next few years. I think there are issues. Another phrase I would like to ban is back office. The idea, and it's not just in higher education, it's in local government, central government, i.e. the people who do the HR or the IT, they're not really important, and what matters only is what is in the front of the student. Now, interestingly, technology occupies a really joined up space there. I think there could be some simplistic thinking. I'm not sure the detail of what's happening at Northampton University, but there could be simplistic thinking that says that only what matters is what happens at the interface with the user, customer, client, whatever you want to call it, whatever the sector is. What the so-called back office does sometimes, if it does it efficiently, is hugely important to the creation, say, of the student experience. I mean, we've just created a new network, in fact involving IT, called Leading the Student Experience, and it brings together not just Pro-Vice Chancellor's of Teaching and Learning, but it brings together USISO, which is the IT community, Skol, the librarians, AgCast, the careers people, a moshi of the student services people, getting a sense of joined up. Now, someone will be front of house, some will be back of house, so to speak. That's irrelevant. It's whether they're doing a job that is serving the student. Thank you very much. Just up to nature, we've got 64 people following online here. A few questions coming in, so if I can summarise one or two of them. AJ is actually asking about this challenge of enabling VCs and DVCs to understand how ICT can indeed be a strategic tool. I wonder if you could comment on what the leadership's foundation approaches to that challenge. Well, the first answer to working with Jess is to make available a way in which universities, in particular at scene levels, can look at themselves. Though that doesn't necessarily motivate senior leaders to action. I don't know what you think, but I think what motivates senior leaders to action is seeing someone in the next place doing something that they should be doing. I wouldn't say it's envy, jealousy, that's all the wrong words, but it's sort of seeing things that really are worth doing. I think the way that you make change happen is creating opportunities for those new ideas to surface and to cause that envy or jealousy that says we need to do that as well. It's an interesting comment on the world we're moving into in higher education. Everyone's saying, in the UK, that we're into a more competitive era of higher education, with a new legislation and so on. But actually, you've got to be collaborative as well. I worked in the private sector for many years. People said the private sector is just about competition. I tell you it isn't. The private sector is very shrewd at collaborating as well as competing. We've got to encourage that collaboration. We've got to encourage universities to see down the road they're doing that. I would do it myself to work collaborate with them. That's a very interesting response. I hope AJ is satisfied with that. There's a lot of food for thought there. Can I just take one more coming in online? Dominic is talking about how seductive the business metaphor is for universities and how that often leads to quite inappropriate models for governance that are quite alien to us. I think you picked up from my talk, I am not simply promoting a seductive private sector-ish managerialist model. I'm afraid it won't work. Or if it does, it will take the heart out of what a university is about. But that's not a recipe for doing nothing. You've somehow got to take the elements that will work in a university setting. There are some big issues for universities, I think. One of them, I mentioned the silos, I'm not going to use the word being more corporate because that sounds private sector-ish. The word I like to use is aligned. There are a lot of unaligned people in universities. If you read your guardian education today, someone who works a lot with us, Professor Sir Peter Scott, who is Vice Chancellor of Kingston University, is now used to education, is talking about the White Paper in England and the whole issue of the extent to which the approach is taking away that sense of an open system. Will it be blue skies research? Will it be a more open approach to teaching and much more kind of hypothecated around agendas? Now, somewhere along there, on that spectrum is the right place to be now. But I think there is a need to move towards a more aligned space. I mean, even at the top, another bit of our research that you could find on our website is about top teams in higher education by Dr Tom Kenny, who runs our top management programme, and his stories of how both successful and unsuccessful top teams is very interesting, and the unsuccessful ones has extraordinarily competitive behaviour within the top team or unaligned behaviour. There is an issue about how far you can allow too much freedom in a world where the competition is going at you. It's a very complicated period, but we're not into seductive, private sector, managerialist solutions, except maybe for those under the many private universities in the audience here. There may be some private universities for whom that's the right solution. Is anyone from BPP here? I mean, they might say that's how we operate. Malcolm is up there. Thank you. I'm sure a lot of technologists love the aligned point. We'll definitely want to work on that, and we're just going to take a comment from Malcolm Reid. No, there's a bit of a follow-up to a Dominic's question on the seduction or otherwise.  Why not, Malcolm? Do you think that that is exactly what he was referring to in the quote that he put up, that it is the kind of mass teaching rather than mass education that he would regard as being an example of innovation? Yeah, it's possible. It's possible. Do you say a bit more or less? I don't know. I mean, it's a very detailed quote because he's not a... Well, he's a politician with a private sector background. I think the government does... The government's rhetoric is one which is of a much more corraled sort of a commercialised approach to teaching, and we do have to make sure we educate our politicians. In fact, I'm going to be at the Vice Chancellor's Conference this week where Vince Cable is speaking, and I'm sure quite a few Vice Chancellor's will want to educate him further. We're very relieved to hear that indeed. I want to thank you very much for that fascinating talk.


Hey Psych2Goers, welcome back to our channel. When you're intrigued by someone, it's natural to wonder whether they feel the same way about you. After all, if you are certain that they liked you, making an advance would be far less daunting. While you won't know how someone feels until they say it, experts claim there are a number of signals of mutual attraction that can clue you into whether you've got a chance with this person. Let's face it, people say a lot of weird and wonderful things, especially when they're interested in you. So let's look at seven things people say when they like you. We hope that you can feel confident that you are on the right track and your feelings are reciprocated. Number one. I was wondering if you'd like to join me. Has anyone ever said this phrase to you? This is a classic example of someone who likes you asking you out on a date. When they're being forward with this phrase, it could mean there won't be any confusion as to whether they're interested in just friendship or if it's a date. So if they ask you this, it's game on. Number two. Are you busy or free tonight? Has anyone ever asked you this question? This is an easy question that leaves little to chance when someone likes you. They want to know if they have fear company for the evening, in case they need it, and whether you would like to be in it. Number three. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. People who like you will want to view your opinion on a subject they care about or that interest them. So if someone wants your input and they aren't trying to catch you out, then it's likely because they value what you think and feel. This is definitely a positive sign of interest. Number four. Can I have your number or email? This is the direct way to ask for your contact details as they wish to engage and communicate with you on a habitual basis. If someone asks for these from you, it could mean that they're interested in getting to know you better, either as a friend or more. So when you receive this question, you may respond to them wisely as your decision to give them your contact details is in your hands. Number five. I feel like I can be myself around you. When someone likes you, they will feel at ease in your company. There's less awkwardness or tension when they're with you, which makes them enjoy spending time with you. If someone feels relaxed when they're with you, then it means that they're being themselves and enjoy the positive conversations and time together, which makes them want more of these experiences. Number six. I want to get to know more about you. Do you want to get to know more about them? They certainly want to know about you. People who like each other tend to find out everything about one another, including talking about their past relationships, childhood experiences and family life. If someone brings up these topics, then it means they're interested in getting to know more than just your name and what job you do for a living. Don't be surprised if they want to know what you had for breakfast yesterday. And number seven. You're always on my mind. This is a sweet way of someone letting you know that they've been thinking about you even when you weren't with them. When you hear phrases like this from someone who likes being around you, it means that they're interested in getting to know more about your thoughts and musings, as well as the experiences you share together and your feelings for them. When you like someone, you will always want to know more about them and spend as much time with them as possible. And in return, you wish for them to feel the same. So when you notice these signs in the attraction process, there's a strong chance that you can strengthen this relationship to the next level, whether they say these things to your face or behind your back. If a person is interested in getting to know you better, then it's a good idea for you to start learning how to respond to them. Do you know of any other ways to tell what someone would say if they liked you? Leave it in our comment section below and share it with others. Please like and share this video if it helped you or you think it could help someone else. Don't forget to hit the subscribe button and notification bell icon for more cyclical videos. Thanks for watching.