Has Conversation Become a Neglected Art?

[the_rake]

As a matter of fact, have you never noticed that most conversations are simply monologues delivered in the presence of witnesses?

Margaret Millar - The Weak-Eyed Bat

I think that this has to be one of the worst and most damaging phrases to enter popular culture. Of course, the fault does not belong to the original author per se but it has been something used to promote the art of listening. Well, listening is a two way street, and it is never one person with all the ability in the world to ask questions and sit back and listen to the most boring of conversation partners.

Nor should it ever be the burden of one person to be constantly forced to probe and ask further details from a person who would prefer to sit-back and give monosyllabic answers to every question an interested conversation partner has to ask about the other participant within a dialogue (*ahem*, girls - I'm looking at you!).

And yes! it is indeed called a dialogue for a good reason:

Perhaps this statement was not originally intended in such a manner (it is hard to determine), but popular psychologists, self-improvement gurus and other such writers have been quick to jump on the bandwagon to proclaiming the passive act of listening the most important tool in our repertoire, Dale Carnegie being the most notorious, in my opinion:

I met a distinguished botanist at a dinner party given by a New York book publisher and I found him fascinating. He spoke of exotic plants and experiments in developing new forms of plant life and indoor gardens. There must have been a dozen other guests, but I violated all the canons of courtesy, ignored everyone else, and talked for hours to the botanist. Later that evening, the botanist turned to our host and paid me several flattering compliments. I was "most stimulating" and a "most interesting conversationalist". I had said hardly anything at all. But I had done this: I had listened intently because I was genuinely interested. And he felt it.

In many ways the entire book is based on this principle: the art of listening - or more generally still, the power of appealing to another person's ego. I do not want to sit here and say that this is a bad conversation tact or that it never works. Rather what I want to say is that there are at least three situations in which it does not work:

1. The person is an expert in their subject and does not feel like divulging in complex, technical details with the average layman who has no such knowledge of the talker's passion.

2. The person is mundane or superficial: the type of person that would rather give your questions monosyllabic answers and whip out their i-Phone than talk to you (although it must be said that Carnegie had not yet been introduced to the wonders of modern technology).

3. The person is an aggressive conversation bore who takes the opportunity to walk all over you.

In all fairness to Carnegie, however, he does take time to mention the latter kind of beast:

"Africa!" I exclaimed "How interesting! I've always wanted to see Africa, but I never got there except for a twenty-four-hour stay once in Algiers. Tell me, did you visit the big-game country? Do tell me about Africa." That kept her talking for forty-five minutes. She didn't want to hear me talk about my travels. All she wanted was an interested listener, so she could expand her ego.

What to talk about?

But this is not the point of the mytake. The point is the following: conversation has become a neglected art. People have become wrapped up in the superficialities of modern technology and commercial culture, that they barely have an interesting word to say.

And where there are other people, there has always been gossip: malicious rumours and other forms of negative expression about ones peers and neighbours whenever they happen to not be within a local vicinity.

People will scoff at the modern conversationalist: the man who wants to refine his knowledge about the diverse areas of culture, economics, philosophy, history, arts and humanities in general. A person that wants to talk about and learn more about these things is thought of as:

- a pedantic bore

- somebody that thinks too highly of himself

- sometimes even, a person who is soft or effeminate (as is the case when dealing with cultural machoism)

Sometimes I do find myself relating to this mindset. But I do feel that this speaks out about the current state of affairs of the world (or rather, absence) of communication and not just myself and like-minded individuals such as Franz Kafka.

And the first two points in some situations and of certain people may well be the case. However, if conversation is a two-way street, as I believe I have demonstrated, then it is necessary for both parties to possess a wide repertoire of interesting, factual knowledge that can be shared in an informal and not overly imposing setting but in short, sharp snaps of fascinating exchanges. What if a person does not possess such knowledge? Then they will be relegated to the mundane task of 'small talk':

- discussing the weather

- asking a person how she or he is

- talking about one's own weekend

Naturally, there is nothing wrong with these topics, however an individual with anxiety or social awkwardness will be at a loss for words in some settings - mainly social events, but also some professional situations and surviving day to day routines that involve human contact. The popular psychology and self-improvement advice for such individuals has always been the following:

- be yourself

- be confident

- smile and have open body language

- be positive

Conclusion

Anybody that is somewhat au fait with my takes on this website will know more details about why I am opposed to this particular trend of so-called wisdom. And this trend needs to change. Their needs to be more literature dedicated to the specific art of conversation. This is a lost art in a world that has become immersed in the superficialities of technologies and commercialism and a very challenging art in a world where people's minds are tuned in to very narrow attention spans - after all, why listen to somebody's boring conversation about politics or national geography when you can change the T.V. channel or open up yet another tab on your laptop?

Why bother with culture at all, in fact when it is a far less intellectually daunting task to see what your friends have posted on their twitter account? I would feel guilty if I left this article with no written advice on my own behalf of what conversation topics to use. For this reason, I will take the time to link in the Top 10 Conversation Topics from peopleskillsdecoded.com and the promise that a future take of mine will be dedicated to exploring such an area in more detail.

[redeyemindtricks]

I have zero trouble engaging in cool, stimulating conversation with just about anyone who has 3 brain cells to rub together (and even lots of people who don't, if they are funny enough... lol). From age 5 to age 105. Like, no trouble at all.

You seem to be deriding "small talk" as somehow inferior to other forms of conversation. It isn't -- it's a way of creating comfort, and cementing bonds, relationships, and friendships between people.
Small talk has the same relationship to deeper conversations as flirting/foreplay does to sex -- it's a low-risk, low-exposure way to get to know people, feel them out, and figure out what kind of terms you want the following interaction to proceed on (or whether you want that interaction to proceed at all!).

Small talk isn't actually that small. A perceptive person can figure out a LOT about her/his interlocutor from just a couple of minutes of "small talk":
• What she/he considers too personal to discuss, vs. what she/he is open to talking about (often most evident from jokes or humorous remarks)
• Her/his core values (usually pretty obvious from chatting about people or relationships)
• How she/he apprehends the world in general (inquisitive? judging? arrogant? open-minded? analytical? etc)
And so on.

What you're seeing as a lack of deeper conversation out there, might just be people deciding that they don't want to have those conversations with you in particular -- in other words, that they're not "compatible" with you in that sort of way.
Like, in the same way you might flirt with someone, but ultimately not want to take it any further (or just flirt for the sake of flirting, with someone you'd never go any further with -- the same happens with small talk, too).

[the_rake]

'I have zero trouble engaging in cool, stimulating conversation with just about anyone who has 3 brain cells to rub together '

As someone with language and processing difficulties - and certainly considering myself as someone with more than 3 brain cells - I find this a condescending statement. It's typical of some extroverts to assume that introverts aren't on the same intellectual level as them just because they do not share the same strength.

'You seem to be deriding "small talk" as somehow inferior to other forms of conversation. '

You might want to re-read because that was not my exact statement. Small talk is good.

When I mentioned 'small talk' I was talking about an extremely narrow range of topics: discussing the weather; asking a person how she or he is; talking about one's own weekend. These are good at the very beginning of an interaction, sometimes (sometimes!). More often than not though, the person will assume you lack that "wow factor" ...

[the_rake]

[PT2]

... needed to genuinely intrigue them and make cooler, more fascinating discussion. As for small talk more generally, I actually praised it:

'it is necessary for both parties to possess a wide repertoire of interesting, factual knowledge that can be shared in an informal and not overly imposing setting but in short, sharp snaps of fascinating exchanges. '

Emphasis on 'informal and not overly imposing setting' and 'short, sharp snaps of fascinating exchanges.' This is small talk. I don't want lengthy diatribes about political economy either, believe me. HOWEVER, in the take I criticise the stance some people take that:

'A person that wants to talk about and learn more about these things is thought of as:
- a pedantic bore
- somebody that thinks too highly of himself
- sometimes even, a person who is soft or effeminate (as is the case when dealing with cultural machoism)'

[redeyemindtricks]

What kind of processing difficulties? And what do you do to compensate?

[the_rake]

Uh, a range of difficulties related to the way I subjectively process language. An example would be that the other day I was at KFC and ordered a chicken zinger meal: she asked me what 'side order' I wanted and I thought she was asking what 'size'. I thought there was only one size so I kept saying regular, waiting for the screen behind her to show all the prices again because it flickered off. Then she repeated the question, and I began to feel frustrated so I pointed at the board behind her and said, there that size, at which point she smiled endearingly and articulated her question more clearly. After that I was waiting to collect the order and several different varieties of 'zinger' meals came to the table - chicken 'zinger' with fries, great 'zinger', etc. Every time I asked if it was mine she got frustrated - which is understandable, by the way...

[the_rake]

and said something like, "no, this is chicken zinger with medium fries, your's is great size whopper zinger with side order" or something. At times like this, I shut down a bit and just hear things like "great size zinger revamped", "KFC chicken nugget fries zinger", "super zinger dinger schminger winger", etc. So in the end I just waited to be prompted.

Another example would be group conversations. These can be chaos when you have four different competing voices, all with different subjective view points, different areas of expertise, different philosophies on life and different ways of understanding and defining language. I get so focussed on these differences - even if there are underlying similarities - that it becomes impossible to make sense of any aspect of the conversation, so my brain shuts down

[the_rake]

... and I play the "I'm an introvert card", which is to essentially just blag and make very simple observations and comments at random points in the conversation, keeping an ear out for key words, and not avoiding subject matters way out of my depth. Mostly I am relating a shared experience, so if somebody talks about the time they went skiing in the Quebec, I will mention how one time I went snowboarding in the Alps, etc.

Just that kind of thing.

[redeyemindtricks]

When you listen to, say, a string quartet, do you hear a string quartet? Or does yr brain try to pick it apart into the different individual instruments' sounds?

[the_rake]

That's an interesting question to ask because I'm a musician and a composer. I find that sound is very different when it is abstract sound compared to, say, language. Interestingly, there was a famous quote by a composer - I can't find the exact quote - but he said that people often told him, why listen to music when it has no meaning. He said that to him, music conveys a lot of meaning and that there is nothing less meaningful or arbitrary than language. I feel in a similar way: the parts in a string quartet would roll together into moving progressions and harmonies but people's voices communicate language and ideas that often formulate themselves as competing ideologies.

[redeyemindtricks]

Maybe you could approach the kind of conversation yr talking about as though it were a quartet -- just as a thought experiment.
I mean, music is full of dissonance, too. (Think of the typical cadence at the end of most Classical or Romantic pieces -- there's *lots* of dissonance, until you get to the very last note.)

Of course it isn't literally the same thing, since it's harder to understand the words when people are talking over each other (as opposed to musical notes, where nothing is obscured in that way) -- but, still, could be an interesting experiment.
At the very least, the dissonance would probably start to bother you a lot less, which, in turn, could allow you to focus more on the elements of the conversation.

As far as the zinger thing, and other stuff like that -- Have you ever traveled somewhere where you only had a basic command of the language? If so, then, you'd have to learn to get by in day-to-day situations while only understanding maybe 50% (or even 30% or

[redeyemindtricks]

whatever) of the words.
If you *have* had that experience with a second language, then, think back on how you "connected the dots" enough to fill in the rest of the message -- you probably used other things, nonverbal communication, common sense, etc. to fill in a surprising amount of the missing pieces.
Then, if you find yrself in a situation like that, just pretend you're in another country and you're speaking in a 2nd language, where you actually DON'T KNOW all the words. (That's what is causing the trouble right now -- you have this built-in expectation that you should understand 100 percent of the words.)

If you haven't been in a 2nd language situation like that, then you could always start watching youtube videos and/or talking to people in a language you're just learning. Then pay attention to how yr mind figures out how to "fill in the blanks" in the message -- which you probably do surprisingly well, even if you only understand half the words (or less).

[the_rake]

Interesting thought example, and to be fair I do think like that about a lot of conversation in some ways but then for me it means a lot of my interaction is non-verbal - just 'listening', smiling and agreeing for the most part. I do ten times better now than a few years ago and I'm sure at some point in the future I will have an even better grip. But for me it is frustrating when people do not understand or sympathise with this. I'm not like a guy in a wheel chair - more like a guy with a sprained ankle or something that has to hop around a lot. It's painful if you do accidentally land on that sprained ankle, and because people can't *see* the sprained ankle, they get angry and frustrated when you can't keep up:

"Just walk faster, it's not that hard!"

So I am somewhat misanthropic now, because I have been forced to learn how to 'hop'. So because I hop so fast, yeah I can pretend to be positive and blend in to the crowd and my differences not noticed...

[the_rake]

[PT2]

But it makes me frustrated and angry that people are so oblivious and ignorant about this kind of thing. Then there's all the shallow toss advice: "just be confident", "just be yourself" kind of thing. I hear this and know that there is way too many b. s. underlying assumptions to even begin to tell the person why they're are wrong, so nowadays IRL, I just agree with them: "of course, you're right in everything you say, how could you not be?"

The Zinger thing is actually a rare example. That doesn't happen very often - usually an order is pretty straight forward. But yes I can see how second languages will help. Still, it is not as if native speakers have this problem (not that that's relevant, because I know that I need to keep up and develop my own coping mechanisms - that's just the way things are). Regardless it's incredibly annoying and I'm fed up of all these people assuming that I must be stupid or low self-esteem or something.

[the_rake]

[FINAL]

Yes, I do have some limited experience, albeit limited experience with second language. But most countries I've travelled to speak English so it's not as if I'm ever really being forced out of my comfort zone like that.

[redeyemindtricks]

Well, you don't have to be a Chatty Cathy to be a skilled conversationalist, though -- especially not as a man. I know quite a few guys who don't really talk much, but who can still effectively dominate group conversations by just butting in with well-timed one-liners / jokes / humorous comments at *exactly* the right moment. The rest of the time, they just... kinda talk with their facial expressions.
If you have anything approaching that sort of personality -- where you could mostly just view the proceedings in a detached, amused, sorta-condescending-but-fun kind of way, and then just butt in every now and then with something hilarious -- then, you could make that work for you.

The second language thing will help A LOT. If you happen to be learning a language at the moment, really, just start exposing yourself to recordings/videos/broadcasts of it -- you'll notice a HUGE jump in yr ability to understand "partial conversations", in no time flat.

[the_rake]

'I know quite a few guys who don't really talk much, but who can still effectively dominate group conversations by just butting in with well-timed one-liners / jokes / humorous comments at *exactly* the right moment.'

Yeah, I know. For me it's not really jokes just observations and statements because I'm not funny. Still, guys that do that will be *understood* but they will always be thought of as a bit weird.

'The second language thing will help A LOT. If you happen to be learning a language at the moment, really, just start exposing yourself to recordings/videos/broadcasts of it '

Hmm, well I've always been meaning to pick French back up. Some time ago, I was talking to a girl on OkC in pidgeon French but languages are not really something I have time for the most part, given all the other stuff I do.

[redeyemindtricks]

15-30 minutes a day? You could spare that.

It adds up.

[the_rake]

hmm, maybe when I've finished my current project I will consider. I tend to get very focussed on just one thing though: why do something for 15-30 mins when you can spread it out through the day and really focus on all the different elements?

[Bvroon]

This is a wonderful take. The fact of the matter is words mean things, and the greater your skill in using words, the greater your ability to create meaningful ideas, which will create a rich and engaging landscape for the ear to behold, this will in turn capture the imagination of your audience. While I can appreciate that there are many technological wonders of the world today, which in their own respect can provide a wealth of information at the touch of a button, this rapid access to information does not a conversation make. Its what you do with the information you have, when and how you use it and your skill with words that makes such a huge difference. I feel it is sad that people have forgotten that we have a rich and wonderful language. The mastery of which can then provide the user with a huge palate of colors to paint a landscape for the ear to behold.

[the_rake]

Wonderful post. Words do mean things and we can't ignore this: just look at the swathe of modern psychology texts and self-improvement advice. "Non-verbal communication constitutes 80% of interaction" is always the go-to advice. But nobody ever says that a book, or an article or some other vehicle of written communication only communicates 20%, so why should the same be true of spoken conversation? I like the fact technology gives us such fast access to information, but humans need to figure out a steadier mechanism for harnessing that power.

[Bvroon]

Well my friend we already have that mechanism, it has been with us the whole time, we just need to use it. That mechanism is the brain, and while I can very much appreciate the technology which allows us to access information at the stroke of a key, it all means nothing if we can't use and put the information into some sort of context. :-)

[the_rake]

Agreed very much - humans need to use their brain. Perhaps I should have specified 'culture'. We need a culture that promotes a particular way of organising and disseminating information so that it is not just readily available but that it is actively absorbed in the most efficient manner.

[the_rake]

Ahah, you just gave me an idea for a mytake.

[Bvroon]

Fair enough, and I'm glad our exchanges have given you some new and inspiring ideas. :-)

[Prof_Don]

The ability to do "small talk" with all types of people, is a VERY valuable skill.

Unfortunately, less and less people (especially my age) aren't good at beginning it, nor receiving it.

It does seem like my generation seems to be more socially stunted, anxious, and even FEARFUL of starting a conversation with someone they just met without having a "mutual person that they know".

Those that are older than me, seem to be more receptive to talking to strangers. Why? I'm not completely sure.

[the_rake]

Yeah, I know it seemed like I was criticising small talk at certain points but that wasn't actually the case. It was just a specific type of 'small talk' (hence the use of quotation marks).

'Those that are older than me, seem to be more receptive to talking to strangers.'

I think it is likely one of either the following:
1. They grew up in a generation that was more social, where technology was not so strongly intertwined with daily communication.
2. They have more experience and with more experience of life, people tend to lose their anxieties and open up more.

[vishna]

I like the idea of this MyTake, but next time could you not try to give a hint to the ladies that we have to have the conversation handed to us. I mean, the entire time I've dated guys, if I stop engaging, the conversation halts and when I probe why they say "You carry it better... I dunno what to say..." That is laziness! Ahem GUYS. AHEM. haha.

Besides that little bit. I agree. I'm sick of people talking to me and really, all they're doing is talking about themselves. I find my mom so guilty of this. She went to drop presents off at a friend's for her baby shower and spent the entire time talking about herself, it drove me nuts because it was so rude. I love the woman, but damn.

[the_rake]

'I mean, the entire time I've dated guys, if I stop engaging, the conversation halts and when I probe why they say "You carry it better... I dunno what to say..." '

I can't talk for your experience but usually when I have a date, I will have done most of the work already - approaching, getting her interested enough to give me her number, texting her, getting her to agree on a date, etc. Ok, so that doesn't mean I get to turn up at the date and just collapse / let her do all the talking, but I do feel like if there is an awkward silence 9/10 it is because I have been asking her questions, getting monosyllabic answers and then there is this weird look / vibe off her like it is ME that is responsible for such a silence. As men get older, they learn to hold the pauses more because it looks and feels more powerful than if you start blabbering and caving into pressure. Maybe some of this pressure is psychological but it does feel like these women exert at least some of it.

[the_rake]

"I find my mom so guilty of this."

I can relate - my mother was just talking to me about the evolution of the English white moth during the industrial revolution.

[vishna]

I will exert some of this silence because it wasn't because they were testing me, it was because they literally sucked at holding a conversation, haha.

Can you go into more detail of what your mom did?

[the_rake]

'I will exert some of this silence... because they literally sucked at holding a conversation,'

You see, this is kind of unnecessary really. If you don't enjoy the date you don't have to go on a second one, or maybe just politely excuse yourself if really is incredibly dull. I don't think it's fair to push the burden of conversation on the other partner though: it's supposed to be 50/50 exchange.

'Can you go into more detail of what your mom did?'

My mind was preoccupied with something else, so I wasn't really listening. She was trying to prove a complicated point about how quickly evolution can happen and at that time, while it was very intriguing, it just was just a lot of information that I did not feel like concentrating on.

[Audax94]

How to Win Friends and Influence People is probably my favorite book. It had a massive impact on how I related to others socially. I've found that when it comes to girls, I have to almost train them to have a conversation. Most are so used to being hit on, and having the guy ask a bunch of questions, that the art of conversation has been lost. Guys are definitely in the same boat though.

You could blame it on our isolationist society or the constant confidence crushing that we all endure from the media, but the ball is still in our court when it comes to doing something about it.

Enjoyed the article. Great take man!

[the_rake]

Thanks

[The_Kitchen_Sink]

https://i.giphy.com/1Z02vuppxP1Pa.gif
There are smart people after all... Let's huddle closer, I heard if you try to get close to the stupid ones, your IQ is automatically lowered by being in the close proximity...

[the_rake]

Man, this take wasn't hating on small talk... maybe you should re-read it.

[The_Kitchen_Sink]

MyTake was about conversations being without meaning these days, right?
Or that people don't talk intelligently anymore?

[the_rake]

I read your comment as sarcastic / ironic. Yes, I think that people don't talk with much meaning anymore, but this isn't necessarily something I attribute to small talk.

[The_Kitchen_Sink]

I have a feeling we are both right but one of us is struggling to express himself and the other one is confused.
I don't know who is who though... O. o

[Anonymous]

Pretty much.

How relationship start today:
1. Oh we both find each other attractive and want to bang
2. We have sex
3. We go out and party and had fun
4. We are now a couple and don't know nearly anything about each other
5. Incompatibility outside the physical start to show
6. Resentment/anger/possibly cheating
7. Leave

Rinse repeat

[fueledbythc]

A conversation is the best way to express yourself.

[the_rake]

agreed

[cherrymarina]

Great post! I love mentally stimulating conversations :) It is a lost art but sometimes you meet those people who make your curious brain sing.

[NedfromtheNed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPQ08Sjjq1Y

[Anonymous]

People can't communicate anymore in person. All they know is online

[NedfromtheNed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPQ08Sjjq1Y

[kittykatbrat]

Yes.

People often introduce themselves to me and then have nothing to say.

[the_rake]

I can see why that would be annoying but taking the initiative to introduce oneself and show interest in further communication is already a daunting task, no?

[kittykatbrat]

Perhaps I just forget how hard introductions are for other people because my work is very social, however, them not having anything to say to me almost immediately loses my interest.

I use this as a filter tbh.
ie: Interesting people vs non interesting people.

[the_rake]

I can definitely see that if you are approached quite frequently by people like this it would become a daunting task. Perhaps, in the future a tack that would reduce the need for a filter element would be a few open questions, to make it slightly easier for the person to feel more comfortable after they have broken the initial ice? This would hopefully reduce the amount of annoyance you are forced to experience, and by no means would I suggest you consider further communication if the person is simply unwilling or unable to. However, an open question does help a lot, especially if the person suffers from anxiety or social awkwardness.

[kittykatbrat]

Whereas I really don't jell with socially awkward shy people.
Not my tribe tbh.
I like natural flow rather than forced extractions.
That's why my filter always works :)

[the_rake]

hmm well ok fair enough

[Rodismus]

YESSSSS, women that only reply if you ask them a question FUCK that. so irritating

[chintita]

no i don't think it has, although in the past language was more classy and poetic.

[Fathoms77]

Short answer:

Of course.

[the_rake]

I think in the western world, we should take more time to teach young people such an important life skill in our education system. After all, there are so many non-functional things that are included in syllabuses everywhere and so little time for things like this that are not only functional but a wonderful, artistic means of expression, taking the dive into the general knowledge corpus of men in general.

[Fathoms77]

Oh yes, we've absolutely regressed. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote "The House of Seven Gables" for teenagers. There are adults today who couldn't handle that book.

Our communication and general literary skill has become just... appallingly bad.

[the_rake]

Interesting. I guess the more of a well-rounded person you are - the more interests you have, the more books you read, and the more things you do with your time - the more things you have to talk about and the more of an interesting person you are. This is why I have so many things to say against the self-improvement trend that if you just be a more positive and confident person you will be a better conversationalist and get more out of interaction. It's not that I think that this is untrue, it's that this advice ignores the journey one must take to such a state of mind.

[Fathoms77]

The self-improvement trend is critically flawed because most times, it's not about "self-improvement" at all, but about allowing people to feel "okay" about everything that's wrong with them. It's more about coddling, which of course doesn't do anything in the long run for self-esteem or creativity or overall production; it just tells us it's "okay" to be slugs.

We've left real self-improvement behind long ago, unfortunately.

[the_rake]

A lot of contemporary self-improvement is utterly useless. I picked up Eckhart Tolle's book from the shelves a few years ago, and I honestly think it left me worse off.

[PineappleBreath]

I just make up stupid shit to amuse myself that always makes for interesting conversation

[GreatnessRevamped]

Good job, rake.

[the_rake]

thanks man