Communications set to "High" or "Low"?

[MartialIntent]

I'm in a certain situation that grates with me because of the level of superficiality. And it's led me to think that this lack of depth in conversational communication is the rule and not the exception.

I believe the vast majority of talk is where our communication dial is set to "Low" - it's gratuitous, wasted and idle - and that is of course excepting those who just ain't got much to say anyway .

I mean...
[devil's advocate]
although we're all familiar with the "if you've nothing to say, say nothing" and "empty vessels" notions, I think those sentiments are largely irrelevant, like water off a duck's back to us as we've all got a certain conceit in our belief that we've something worth saying - whether or not, that's actually the case.
[/devil's advocate ]

Rotating our communication dial to "Medium" we get a whole bunch of talk which consists simply of an exchange of ideas [you say something, I say something, you say something else and so do I and so it goes on that level plane]. At this point on the dial, it's more about maintaining conversational momentum than about actually gaining any understanding. It's quintessential chitchat.

Only when our communication dial goes all the way round to "High" do we begin to construct bigger ideas from our initial conversational foundation [you say something, I listen, take in and add something, you reciprocate, etc.] The effect is not just an accumulation of shared ideas but an exponential growth of the knowledge we both have.

So, a few pertinent, questions, any replies to which, I'd be genuinely interested in:

• When you ask someone how they are, is it a rhetorical sentiment? And how do you respond if they tell you how they really are, straight up?
• When in conversation do you listen and more importantly, do you believe you are listened to?
• Does chitchat have its place?

:asian: Respects!

 

[Jade Tigress]

Interesting topic. This is what I think:

• When you ask someone how they are, is it a rhetorical sentiment? And how do you respond if they tell you how they really are, straight up?

I think this depends on who you are asking and the tone in which it's asked. The depth of your relationships with people dictate the level on which you communicate with them. If an aquaintance answers with an honest bad report on how they're doing, and you have no compulsion to deepen the relationship, then I believe an "I'm sorry to hear that" will suffice, or a "congratulations" if it's good news. Generally, asking someone how they are is rhetorical, because usually when we ask we don't really care how they are. We are making small talk.

• When in conversation do you listen and more importantly, do you believe you are listened to?

Again, the level of the relationship dictates alot here. We have circles of friends. There is an outer circle of people you have met before but there is no real level of friendship. This circle is comprised of the most people. The middle circle are your aquaintances. We have lots of those. People we talk with, chat with, and consider a friend, though not necessarily an "inner circle" friend. Our inner circle friends are comprised of a few trusted individuals who we share the details of our lives with.

As far as outer circle and some middle circle people in my life...I always try to be a good listener and pay attention to what someone is saying to me out of respect for them, however, I do not feel I am always listened to.

• Does chitchat have its place?

Yes. Chitchat does have it's place. This is how it is determined what outer circle people stay there and who you become closer to as friends. Chitchat is how we get to know people in general and is an essential part of socializing.

 

[Henderson]

Helluva post M I....

So, a few pertinent, questions, any replies to which, I'd be genuinely interested in:

• When you ask someone how they are, is it a rhetorical sentiment? And how do you respond if they tell you how they really are, straight up?
• When in conversation do you listen and more importantly, do you believe you are listened to?
• Does chitchat have its place?

1. Yes and No. If they are a friend of mine, I mean it most of the time. If just an acquaintence, or someone I've just met, then absolutely. It is completely rhetorical. With friends my response is genuine. Otherwise, I usually don't even expect the question to be answered. I know when I am asked "how are you?", I assume it is rhetorical and typically ignore the question.

2. Yes. I very much prefer listening over talking any day. Yes, I believe I am listened to.

3. I think chit-chat does have it's place. Especially, when speaking with people who aren't in your "inner circle", meaning just acquaintences, co-workers, your boss, etc. I wouldn't be having a deep meaningfull conversation with Bob from accounting in the men's room.

 

[MartialIntent]

Thanks for your reply JT!

I think this depends on who you are asking and the tone in which it's asked. The depth of your relationships with people dictate the level on which you communicate with them. If an aquaintance answers with an honest bad report on how they're doing, and you have no compulsion to deepen the relationship, then I believe an "I'm sorry to hear that" will suffice, or a "congratulations" if it's good news. Generally, asking someone how they are is rhetorical, because usually when we ask we don't really care how they are. We are making small talk.

I agree 100%. I could ask why we inquire of folk how they are when we don't really care, but I guess the answer is out of politeness. But can I ask of you personally, do you think that's a sort of two-faced politeness? I mean, is there any case for *not* asking the "how are you" question rhetorically, and just saying nothing and saving it for when we're genuinely asking someone out of concern? For me, this sort of thing's a pointer that sometimes we're comfortable just to talk AT each other.

Again, the level of the relationship dictates alot here. We have circles of friends. There is an outer circle of people you have met before but there is no real level of friendship. This circle is comprised of the most people. The middle circle are your aquaintances. We have lots of those. People we talk with, chat with, and consider a friend, though not necessarily an "inner circle" friend. Our inner circle friends are comprised of a few trusted individuals who we share the details of our lives with.

Yes indeed. And I'd agree with your categorization - there's gotta be different levels of familiarity. And using that framework JT, how uncomfortable would you find it when someone from your outer or middle circle decides to share details? Would you roll with such a situation? Or roll over cringing?
And on the flipside of that coin, how do you feel when someone in your own inner circle is not communicative with you [or anyone else in that circle]? Particularly when you are aware of a tricky situation they are in and may be able to assist. This is not my situation btw, but I'm wondering do you leave them alone or try to provoke some communication? Personally I believe provoking a reaction is initially not so good but proves itself in the long run and is definitely the lesser of the two evils. Opting out of intimate communication I feel can create vicious circles...

As far as outer circle and some middle circle people in my life...I always try to be a good listener and pay attention to what someone is saying to me out of respect for them, however, I do not feel I am always listened to.

Would you have any notion or have you ever considered why someone might not listen to what you are saying? What I mean is, why do we sometimes pose questions of others that we're frankly not interested in answers to?

Yes. Chitchat does have it's place. This is how it is determined what outer circle people stay there and who you become closer to as friends. Chitchat is how we get to know people in general and is an essential part of socializing.

I understand what you are saying but wouldn't you say you get out what you put in? I know it probably sounds odd but sometimes, I'd rather not bother with someone at all, if I can't know them beyond the superficial level. To me, chitchat is often nothing more than a laryngeal workout! Interested in your views...

Thanks and Respects!

 

[MartialIntent]

Thanks H! The color coordination are a clear sign of a good organizer!

1. Yes and No. If they are a friend of mine, I mean it most of the time. If just an acquaintence, or someone I've just met, then absolutely. It is completely rhetorical. With friends my response is genuine. Otherwise, I usually don't even expect the question to be answered. I know when I am asked "how are you?", I assume it is rhetorical and typically ignore the question.

Yep, you're exactly right, responses to these greetings are generally ignored. Personally I feel no compunction to reply to a casual "how are you?" But I find when we *do* wish to reveal how we are when asked, we often have be devious and subtle and use clever diversions by responding "Don't ask," or "you wouldn't want to know," hoping for a follow up showing some *genuine* interest!

For me, in work or wherever, if I don't want to know, I don't ask and if I ask, it's because I'm genuinely interested.

2. Yes. I very much prefer listening over talking any day. Yes, I believe I am listened to.

I'm encouraged that you do look on it that way. Regarding being listened to, I think it's unfortunate that it's so easy to delude ourselves into believing we really are being listened to dontcha think? I mean, how often have you taken everything in but not *really* been listening - ie. not listening the same way you do when your mortgage broker tells you how much your repayments are or not listening the same way you do when your doc tells you how to administer medications to yourself etc... I think we're great at this trick. I generally assume no-one's listening to a word I say [and I'm usually right, hehe] In fact I've noticed an annoying trait recently that folk can check their cell or check their emails so as to appear to have too much of greater importance to listen. Or maybe that's just me hehe! Does that make any sense?? I'd be interested in your views H!

3. I think chit-chat does have it's place. Especially, when speaking with people who aren't in your "inner circle", meaning just acquaintences, co-workers, your boss, etc. I wouldn't be having a deep meaningfull conversation with Bob from accounting in the men's room.

No argument - there ain't no place for finance in the restrooms! Hehe. Keep that for the fairways.

Thanks and Respects!

 

[Jade Tigress]

Thanks for your reply JT!


I agree 100%. I could ask why we inquire of folk how they are when we don't really care, but I guess the answer is out of politeness. But can I ask of you personally, do you think that's a sort of two-faced politeness? I mean, is there any case for *not* asking the "how are you" question rhetorically, and just saying nothing and saving it for when we're genuinely asking someone out of concern? For me, this sort of thing's a pointer that sometimes we're comfortable just to talk AT each other.

No. I don't think it's a two-faced politeness. The human race thrives on community. We are not solitary creatures. Some are more introverted and some are more extroverted than others...but all in all...everyone needs to relate with other people. And I believe it needs to happen on different levels to satisfy our emotional needs. If we have nothing but inner circle relationships it would become very draining. I think asking "how are you" is just an accepted form of acknowleging another human being. It says they are a person with value whether we are on deep level of friendship or not...every person should be respected as a human being and I feel the "how are you" question is validating. Besides...if we only talk to people we're comfortable with how will we ever make new friends?

Yes indeed. And I'd agree with your categorization - there's gotta be different levels of familiarity. And using that framework JT, how uncomfortable would you find it when someone from your outer or middle circle decides to share details? Would you roll with such a situation? Or roll over cringing?

Again..it depends on who it is and what the situation is. We have the ability to judge and determine for ourselves how much attention the person and situation warrant. I couldn't give a blanket answer because there are too many variables in relating to people.

And on the flipside of that coin, how do you feel when someone in your own inner circle is not communicative with you [or anyone else in that circle]? Particularly when you are aware of a tricky situation they are in and may be able to assist. This is not my situation btw, but I'm wondering do you leave them alone or try to provoke some communication? Personally I believe provoking a reaction is initially not so good but proves itself in the long run and is definitely the lesser of the two evils. Opting out of intimate communication I feel can create vicious circles...

If I was aware of a situation someone close to me was in, and they hadn't communicated it to me, I would not try forcing them to talk. Sometimes we have to work things out in our own minds before we are ready to share them with others. No matter how close those "others" are. What I would do is make it clear that I am there for them anytime they need. I'm only a phone call, email, car ride away. Whatever the situation may be. And then, you have to respect their choice on if or when to share, and be prepared to support them anyway you can if and when they do. If they choose not to, then, as an inner circle person to them I repect their right to decide what they want to share and what they want to keep private.

Would you have any notion or have you ever considered why someone might not listen to what you are saying? What I mean is, why do we sometimes pose questions of others that we're frankly not interested in answers to?

I don't believe this is generally the case. Except for those who just like hearing themselves talk...lol. I believe the "how are you" question is not a question at all. Unless you are seriously asking someone you care about (and we all know when someone means it) it is nothing more than a greeting. Now if someone answers with more detail than you care for or anticipate..they are either very lonely...or lacking basic social skills...or both.

I understand what you are saying but wouldn't you say you get out what you put in? I know it probably sounds odd but sometimes, I'd rather not bother with someone at all, if I can't know them beyond the superficial level. To me, chitchat is often nothing more than a laryngeal workout! Interested in your views...

Thanks and Respects!

Again...if we only communicated on a deep level with people we were close to, we would never have the opportunity to make new friends. Life would get both boring and those close relationships could become quite demanding. We need variety in levels of social interaction in order to stay emotionally healthy.

 

[Swordlady]

Wow...these are some good and deep questions you answered!

• When you ask someone how they are, is it a rhetorical sentiment? And how do you respond if they tell you how they really are, straight up?

Overall, I hope to receive some kind of honest answer to my question, since I usually don't just throw out a "how are you doing" for the heck of it. But I also know that the responses I receive in return will vary, depending on my relationship with the other person and the situation at hand. A friend may choose to give me a detailed explanation of how s/he is doing - which may vary depending on her/his mood. On the other hand, one of my teen clients would most likely give me a flat "Fine" - without any further explanation, even if I try probing him/her a bit.

As for my response to that same question, it would again depend on my relationship with the person and the situation. I would give an honest answer, even to one of my clients (I've *had* told clients when I was having a bad day!), but the level of explanation would depend on how close I was to the person asking me the question.

• When in conversation do you listen and more importantly, do you believe you are listened to?

I've been known to talk too much in the past, so now, I strive to listen more than trying to monopolize the conversation. Though I still have a tendency to talk too much sometimes. Of course I have to be a good listener on the job.

I don't know sometimes if I'm being listened to. I've been known to get a little too "deep" with my thoughts and feelings, which has put off some of my friends. I can tell if I'm being listened to by their eye contact and overall attentiveness.

• Does chitchat have its place?

Absolutely. You can find out a lot about another person even during idle chitchat. Good time to learn the other person's interests, and even what makes him/her tick.

 

[Henderson]

For me, in work or wherever, if I don't want to know, I don't ask and if I ask, it's because I'm genuinely interested.

I really wish more people would take your attitude. I grow so weary of people at work droning on and on about some trivial crap. Unfortunately, I am usually unable to maintain and just end up walking away. I also catch a lot of flack from people for being "distant" (their word, not mine). I'm not one to ask people (friends not included) about their health, jobs, kids, families, or some other thing I couldn't care less about just to make them feel welcome. It's just not me. I am also a very private person. I know most people mean well, but I don't particularly care for people (again, personal friends excluded) asking me how I'm doing, how are the kids, etc.

I'm encouraged that you do look on it that way. Regarding being listened to, I think it's unfortunate that it's so easy to delude ourselves into believing we really are being listened to dontcha think? I mean, how often have you taken everything in but not *really* been listening - ie. not listening the same way you do when your mortgage broker tells you how much your repayments are or not listening the same way you do when your doc tells you how to administer medications to yourself etc... I think we're great at this trick. I generally assume no-one's listening to a word I say [and I'm usually right, hehe] In fact I've noticed an annoying trait recently that folk can check their cell or check their emails so as to appear to have too much of greater importance to listen. Or maybe that's just me hehe! Does that make any sense?? I'd be interested in your views H!

Absolutely. I believe it's common term is "selective hearing". I know my kids have it!! But it definitely comes into play. How often have you been talking in the presence of someone else, and they don't hear a word of your conversation.....until you mention them. Then they are all ears. Most people (I said most, so no flaming guys) will not truly listen unless they feel they have something to gain for themselves.

My lousy $.02

 

[MartialIntent]

JT, great post first of all - and thank you for it! If I could comment on the two below points you made...

Besides...if we only talk to people we're comfortable with how will we ever make new friends?
...
I couldn't give a blanket answer because there are too many variables in relating to people.

While I certainly do agree in principle, personally [and I'm not for a minute trying to extrapolate that to everyone's actions] but personally I am happy going past the superficial with anyone who wants to. I know, I know - you're thinking, "What?" But I've lost count of the times that I have initiated contact with someone out of the blue and they have responded in kind openly. Perhaps it's a situational thing but I've been out walking in the forest and have returned knowing what some stranger thinks about fighting and war. I've been out on the MTB, stopped on the hilltop and got hooked up with a bunch of people whose views on parenthood helped me get some stuff right in my head when my youngest was crazy with colic.

I'm happy to chitchat on park benches - and I find the older generation are fantastic at this but I've found those same older folk are the most open, unabashed and willing to engage also - and I think they've also got the most worth saying and worth hearing. But that's a side note probably.

It's a good call of yours JT - there are truly many variables - and I don't want you thinking I'm running around crazily grabbing folk at random and plying them with my personal thoughts as I'm fairly introverted and quiet by nature but can switch across as needed. I think it's ultimately a question of willingness to approach or be approached that determines whether or not we make new friends.

Now if someone answers with more detail than you care for or anticipate..they are either very lonely...or lacking basic social skills...or both.

Of course, I've gotta pick up on that one!! I'd say if someone answers with more detail than is appropriate, you're correct, that's little more than tactlessness, no question. Which is why [as I mentioned in the reply to H above] we all have our subtle workarounds:
You: How are you?
Someone: Don't ask.
You: Why? What's the matter?

-OR-

You: How are you?
Someone: Don't ask.
You: OK, I won't

Sometimes we follow up and sometimes we don't. It depends upon whether we care a damn for the "someone" above or not, and whether we have time, and whether or not we can really be assed listening. This is exactly why if we don't really wanna know, then maybe we shouldn't ask. Nod our heads - that's just as polite

Thanks again JT, your insight is both interesting and enjoyable.
Respects!

 

[MartialIntent]

Thanks SL for your comments!

Overall, I hope to receive some kind of honest answer to my question, since I usually don't just throw out a "how are you doing" for the heck of it. But I also know that the responses I receive in return will vary, depending on my relationship with the other person and the situation at hand. A friend may choose to give me a detailed explanation of how s/he is doing - which may vary depending on her/his mood. On the other hand, one of my teen clients would most likely give me a flat "Fine" - without any further explanation, even if I try probing him/her a bit.

Indeed, you are spot on in that observation: teens are notorious for reticence. But I find [I used to teach high-school level] that kids often have the most that they'd like to share but for some, there's a lack in confidence in their newly developed views and still-blossoming personalities that they can be reluctant to have put up for "scrutiny". Ironically these are often the people most passionate in their views and opinions. The rest of us can be jaded by the years of apathy. Encouraging a young person with their views can be more rewarding than a lifetime of business meetings.

As for my response to that same question, it would again depend on my relationship with the person and the situation. I would give an honest answer, even to one of my clients (I've *had* told clients when I was having a bad day!), but the level of explanation would depend on how close I was to the person asking me the question.

SL, can I ask if you feel there's a level of appropriateness in communication - depending upon familiarity? Are the barriers to a more meaningful level of communication real or mental ones. And if they exist, for whose benefit are those barriers to communication?

I've been known to talk too much in the past, so now, I strive to listen more than trying to monopolize the conversation. Though I still have a tendency to talk too much sometimes. Of course I have to be a good listener on the job.

Aha, you're getting paid to listen up! I'll bet that focusses your attention!

I don't know what you think of this but I've found that -besides the blusterers- some of the *genuinely* best talkers are also the best listeners - it's a requisite to take in what's being said in a discussion to adequately talk back. And by that same token, silence sometimes equates more to thoughts of vacations than it does to listening! We're all guilty of that one! Hehe.

I don't know sometimes if I'm being listened to. I've been known to get a little too "deep" with my thoughts and feelings, which has put off some of my friends. I can tell if I'm being listened to by their eye contact and overall attentiveness.

Yep, another good call SL, we have to be receptive to the body-language as a metric for any communication. I think we do much of this subconsciously - and can be skillfully manipulated by those in the know - F2F salespeople are clever at this game.

Absolutely. You can find out a lot about another person even during idle chitchat. Good time to learn the other person's interests, and even what makes him/her tick.

You're right, though personally, I find this somewhat more draining than the more "intimate" conversations one might have. For me, it's information overload, there's a lot of extraneous stuff and waffle [do you have that word for rubbish?] Often what I've actually learnt about someone is neither worth knowing nor would be something I'd be likely to retain when I next meet them. What do you think? I'm very interested.

Respects!

 

[MartialIntent]

Thanks again H!

I grow so weary of people at work droning on and on about some trivial crap.

Yeah, that's so true. I think nowadays the "don't speak unless you've something to say" ethos is long vanished. Nowadays we in modern societies are happy to let everyone know our views firm in the belief that they're worth knowing. I know, the irony isn't lost on me as I sit here typing this reply post!! But that's different, right? Hehe

On that point, the internet is a phenomenal forum for dissemination of information - and most of it's pure drivel, contradictory and worthless. The diamonds in there are sometimes hard to mine out.

I also catch a lot of flack from people for being "distant" (their word, not mine).

Perhaps it's not your distance, perhaps it's their reluctance to bridge the gap. I dunno, just a thought.

I'm not one to ask people (friends not included) about their health, jobs, kids, families, or some other thing I couldn't care less about just to make them feel welcome.

Yep, and why would you? I agree, there's a politeness and respect that's due to everyone regardless. But if I'm picking up what you're saying correctly, I'm wondering how you'd compare that to my own view that it's often *not* the actual engaging with someone the issue but rather engaging with them *at a particular level* that holds no interest??

It's just not me. I am also a very private person. I know most people mean well, but I don't particularly care for people (again, personal friends excluded) asking me how I'm doing, how are the kids, etc.

For me, I'm quiet in these cases simply because I generally know people are not asking out of any genuine concern. It's the lipservice politeness that's being applied. We tailor our response appropriately don't we? "Yeah, they're fine," "I'm fine, and you?" There's no willingness to elaborate and nor should there be when the question is posed rhetorically. Elaborating in that situation would be akin to the "tactlessness" alluded to by JT above.

Absolutely. I believe it's common term is "selective hearing". I know my kids have it!!

No argument! LOL

But it definitely comes into play. How often have you been talking in the presence of someone else, and they don't hear a word of your conversation.....until you mention them. Then they are all ears. Most people (I said most, so no flaming guys) will not truly listen unless they feel they have something to gain for themselves.

Well, there's the crux of the matter right there. That's why I always try to engage with someone at the point of their interest. It doesn't always work - especially if they ain't properly listening to what you're saying in the first place!!!! But then, that in itself necessitates ME actually listening - REALLY listening - to what they're saying so as to pull out what makes them tick and what their conversational and personal motivations are at that time... If someone's offloading, sometimes it's not appropriate to impede the flow - but that's a whole nother question isn't it.

What do you think?

My lousy $.02

Ain't nothing lousy about your 2c. I'm happy to take it off you - See I'm collecting them all up and hope to become self-funding someday

Respects!

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

• When you ask someone how they are, is it a rhetorical sentiment? And how do you respond if they tell you how they really are, straight up?

I typically ask this with the intent of honestly finding out how someone is. I've been known to repeat it, in various guises, until the person I'm asking loosens up a bit. At work, however, the focus is a bit tighter and, when I ask this, it's usually in regards to work and workflow. I wouldn't say it becomes rhetorical; but, it's not the same depth as outside of work.

• When in conversation do you listen and more importantly, do you believe you are listened to?

I absolutely listen as often as I can. Sometimes, though, I am fairly bursting with news or a response and I admit I don't always listen well. As to people listening to me? My conversational style can be a bit overwhelming, sometimes, but; I think most of my friends and family try real hard to listen.

• Does chitchat have its place?

Yes...laundrettes, check-out lines and other short-term areas where people are thrown together. I have to admit, though, I've elicited fairly revealing responses from people in those places, too. I also have a friend that works nights and drives 45 miles to and from work. I have been known to simply shoot the breeze with her just to keep her awake.

Excellent topic, MI and great av

 

[Jade Tigress]

JT, great post first of all - and thank you for it! If I could comment on the two below points you made...


While I certainly do agree in principle, personally [and I'm not for a minute trying to extrapolate that to everyone's actions] but personally I am happy going past the superficial with anyone who wants to. I know, I know - you're thinking, "What?" But I've lost count of the times that I have initiated contact with someone out of the blue and they have responded in kind openly. Perhaps it's a situational thing but I've been out walking in the forest and have returned knowing what some stranger thinks about fighting and war. I've been out on the MTB, stopped on the hilltop and got hooked up with a bunch of people whose views on parenthood helped me get some stuff right in my head when my youngest was crazy with colic.

That kind of thing is totally inappropriate and lacking in social skills. That is not what I consider chitchat. That type of conversation is best reserved for those middle circle people...not total strangers you just met! lol

Sometimes we follow up and sometimes we don't. It depends upon whether we care a damn for the "someone" above or not, and whether we have time, and whether or not we can really be assed listening. This is exactly why if we don't really wanna know, then maybe we shouldn't ask. Nod our heads - that's just as polite

Exactly my point. It all boils down to social skills IMO. Either you have highly developed skills or you don't, or you're somewhere in the middle. In any case...there are many strange people out there who do weird things...one of them is making deep conversation with a total stranger in an inappropriate setting.

My respects to you as well MI. :asian:

 

[MartialIntent]

Thanks Egg!

I typically ask this with the intent of honestly finding out how someone is. I've been known to repeat it, in various guises, until the person I'm asking loosens up a bit.

I think that's a good point. Sometimes we genuinely don't want to talk. Fair enough - there's no point coercing anyone into that. But I also think we humans are complex little creatures who often as the song goes "lock up their spirits". I think it takes a fairly astute sense of empathy to pick up on those cues. By your perseverance, you've obviously got that.

I absolutely listen as often as I can. Sometimes, though, I am fairly bursting with news or a response and I admit I don't always listen well.

That's a good point - I think excitement, anguish and other extreme states the ability to listen is often absent. This is of course natural but sometimes [especially when suffering] that the ability to listen to what a friendly concerned person is saying is paramount. Don't you think?

As to people listening to me? My conversational style can be a bit overwhelming, sometimes, but; I think most of my friends and family try real hard to listen.

That's interesting too. I wonder what in particular makes you think your conversational style is so overwhelming that friends have to *try* to listen? I'm sure that's just a bit of self-deprecation, no?

Yes...laundrettes, check-out lines and other short-term areas where people are thrown together. I have to admit, though, I've elicited fairly revealing responses from people in those places, too. I also have a friend that works nights and drives 45 miles to and from work. I have been known to simply shoot the breeze with her just to keep her awake.

That's brilliant - you've got a genuine, sound reason for chitchat - shooting the breeze to keep a friend awake. Actually I've had the same whereby someone can chitchat me to sleep [and I mean that in a good way - all parties agreeing]. Believe me, it's a lovely way to drift away!!!

Having a valid reason for chitchat - that's excellent. I hadn't really thought of that at all! Many thanks - hope to hear more. You like the Av? Thanks.

Respects!

 

[MartialIntent]

Thanks JT!

That kind of thing is totally inappropriate and lacking in social skills. That is not what I consider chitchat. That type of conversation is best reserved for those middle circle people...not total strangers you just met! lol

If you are suggesting I personally lack social skills, well, despite being a slyly hurtful statement, that's not a problem. I think you are however subconsciously picking out undesirable connotations within the word "stranger" and working that into the term "total stranger". Think instead of the "total stranger" one might meet as a little old retired war veteran out with his dog in a forest of an evening or a group of affluent, affable 30-somethings on top-end mountain bikes one might meet while on the same struggle to the top of a 2000ft hill. Maybe that might temper those obvious "bad" connotations.

I'm not a religious person but admire [and horribly fear for] those guys who go into city centres on a Saturday evening [not a good place to be in the UK] and witness to every and all on their religious convictions. That in all probability is naive. It also takes skill and a helluva brass neck.

I wouldn't randomly speak to a bunch of hoods on a street corner ie. the "total strangers" I feel you are alluding to. Having said that, I don't condescend to be polite by use of inane chitchat or gratuitous greetings to those in work who do not merit it either.

Naivete only exists in one's dogmatism. Conceited though it might seem, I consider myself as reasonably streetwise, as pragmatic in my dealings with others, and yes, having some modicum of social skill

In any case...there are many strange people out there who do weird things...one of them is making deep conversation with a total stranger in an inappropriate setting.

Yes, by that purposefully worded definition, you have of course encouraged me to agree that I personally do this - but with one caveat. And that's on the elaboration I have tried to make to the definition of the "total stranger". Whilst I do respect your opinion, the implication that I am both strange and act in a weird manner does make your point but if made as an insult [and not as a warning to kids etc. who may inadvertantly speak to strangers] then it's not perhaps ultimately conducive to furthering the discussion. I would however urge you to continue.

Respects!

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

That's a good point - I think excitement, anguish and other extreme states the ability to listen is often absent. This is of course natural but sometimes [especially when suffering] that the ability to listen to what a friendly concerned person is saying is paramount. Don't you think?

Absolutely. We're only human and we talk. We communicate and we want to share what's going on. Sometimes, we're so overwhelmed with what's going on in our own world, that it has to come out first. Understanding that we need to listen during these severe states is often clouded by the need to relieve ourselves of whatever's stressing us.

That's interesting too. I wonder what in particular makes you think your conversational style is so overwhelming that friends have to *try* to listen? I'm sure that's just a bit of self-deprecation, no?

I use very esoteric references to obscure movies, books and music. People have to listen closely to get the gist sometimes Not that I can't speak clearly with common points of references, it's just not as much fun for me to do so. Self-depracating? A little, of course. Untrue? Not at all!

 

[Jade Tigress]

Thanks JT!


If you are suggesting I personally lack social skills, well, despite being a slyly hurtful statement, that's not a problem. I think you are however subconsciously picking out undesirable connotations within the word "stranger" and working that into the term "total stranger". Think instead of the "total stranger" one might meet as a little old retired war veteran out with his dog in a forest of an evening or a group of affluent, affable 30-somethings on top-end mountain bikes one might meet while on the same struggle to the top of a 2000ft hill. Maybe that might temper those obvious "bad" connotations.

I'm not a religious person but admire [and horribly fear for] those guys who go into city centres on a Saturday evening [not a good place to be in the UK] and witness to every and all on their religious convictions. That in all probability is naive. It also takes skill and a helluva brass neck.

I wouldn't randomly speak to a bunch of hoods on a street corner ie. the "total strangers" I feel you are alluding to. Having said that, I don't condescend to be polite by use of inane chitchat or gratuitous greetings to those in work who do not merit it either.

Naivete only exists in one's dogmatism. Conceited though it might seem, I consider myself as reasonably streetwise, as pragmatic in my dealings with others, and yes, having some modicum of social skill


Yes, by that purposefully worded definition, you have of course encouraged me to agree that I personally do this - but with one caveat. And that's on the elaboration I have tried to make to the definition of the "total stranger". Whilst I do respect your opinion, the implication that I am both strange and act in a weird manner does make your point but if made as an insult [and not as a warning to kids etc. who may inadvertantly speak to strangers] then it's not perhaps ultimately conducive to furthering the discussion. I would however urge you to continue.

Respects!

I was not referring to you at all. By total stranger...I mean someone you have never met before. It was my impression that you were given these types of responses by people you had never talked to previously in a setting of recreation. I do not think you lack social skills. I do not think you're weird. In fact...I quite like you and am not sure how the implication that I was referring to you as lacking social skills or being weird was made. If I misread one your posts forgive me. I tend to read the board with alot going on around me and have been known to misinterpret things due to distractions. If this is the case, please accept my humble apology.



***edit***

I just reread your post MI and I did indeed misread it. I was under the impression that people you had never met, divulged intimate details to you that were NOT solicited. I highly respect your ability to get beyond the superficial and get people communicating on a deeper level.

 

[MartialIntent]

I just reread your post MI and I did indeed misread it. I was under the impression that people you had never met, divulged intimate details to you that were NOT solicited. I highly respect your ability to get beyond the superficial and get people communicating on a deeper level.

Not a problem, not a problem! No need for any apology!

Respects!

 

[MartialIntent]

Absolutely. We're only human and we talk. We communicate and we want to share what's going on. Sometimes, we're so overwhelmed with what's going on in our own world, that it has to come out first. Understanding that we need to listen during these severe states is often clouded by the need to relieve ourselves of whatever's stressing us.

Exactly Egg, there's no doubt that both sides of that coin are equally important. The arrangement should be a reciprocal one so that when we do have something that needs to be out in the open, our confidant(e)s should indeed be listening and not talking. Likewise when we're at our lowest ebb, there can be a voice of reason that can't get through our own self-talk. It's real easy getting these communication protocols straight in our heads when we're clear thinking. The key I think is to bring those thoughts to the fore when we're not...

I use very esoteric references to obscure movies, books and music. People have to listen closely to get the gist sometimes Not that I can't speak clearly with common points of references, it's just not as much fun for me to do so. Self-depracating? A little, of course. Untrue? Not at all!

That's another interesting point. Since those people you are confiding in are evidently close to you, I'm guessing you know full well whether a particular analogy or metaphor will work with them, right? If that's the case [and apologies for presumption on my part] but if that's the case and - and the implication is that the references are too esoteric, then why might you be using them? I mean why I wonder is there "fun" in using points of reference that as you say are un-common between you and your confidant(e)?

I mean, I have a relationship that is very much run on a love-hate theme to use the cliche. This is a person for whom I hold a very, very particular grudge but at the same time a person whom I love deeply. Like you, I have "fun" and play some games with the communication therein. Perhaps a different scenario to your own though.

Very interesting indeed. I'm guessing you've thought that around in your head. If you'd care to share, that would be insightful.

Respects!

 

[Swordlady]

Indeed, you are spot on in that observation: teens are notorious for reticence. But I find [I used to teach high-school level] that kids often have the most that they'd like to share but for some, there's a lack in confidence in their newly developed views and still-blossoming personalities that they can be reluctant to have put up for "scrutiny". Ironically these are often the people most passionate in their views and opinions. The rest of us can be jaded by the years of apathy. Encouraging a young person with their views can be more rewarding than a lifetime of business meetings.

It's interesting; I just came back a little while ago from an all-day training about communicating with teenagers. Something we talked about was how many teens feel like they are not understood or respected. Throw in the fact that they may not know how to describe how they feel; they may not know the right words for those feelings. There was definitely an emphasis on doing more listening than talking. What surprised me was the whole notion of not giving advice or offering solutions to problems in a conversation with a teen client (or any other client, for that matter). Instead, we were to offer different options, or ask them to come up with some options of their own.

SL, can I ask if you feel there's a level of appropriateness in communication - depending upon familiarity? Are the barriers to a more meaningful level of communication real or mental ones. And if they exist, for whose benefit are those barriers to communication?

Yes, I definitely think that there are different levels of "appropriateness" in communication. For example, though I may convey to a client (or maybe even a total stranger) that I'm not having a good day, I would not necessarily volunteer an explanation about why I wasn't having a good day (especially if the reason is...personal). Another thing that was pointed out in today's training was that though we (myself and the other social workers) are bound to keep client information confidential, our clients do not have that same obligation. Therefore, we should NOT tell them anything that we don't want repeated. Same thing when talking with a total stranger or someone I don't know very well. Though I may have decided to hold a conversation in confidence, there is no guarantee that the other party would not use that conversation as fodder for gossip. There would have to be a certain level of trust before I disclose certain information.

I think that barriers of communication are more mental than physical. I know that some of us may be put off by physical barriers, such as deafness, muteness, etc. But I think that we may allow our preconceived notions of a person hinder us from giving that person a chance at a meaningful conversation.

Honestly, I don't think barriers in communication are helpful to either party. Communication takes two people. If one side isn't willing to communicate, then you really don't have a conversation, right? It would be akin to talking to a wall.

Aha, you're getting paid to listen up! I'll bet that focusses your attention!

Yeah, I'm getting paid alright. Just not an awful lot; a social worker's salary (even at a Master's level) isn't the greatest. I'm certainly NOT getting rich in this profession.

I don't know what you think of this but I've found that -besides the blusterers- some of the *genuinely* best talkers are also the best listeners - it's a requisite to take in what's being said in a discussion to adequately talk back. And by that same token, silence sometimes equates more to thoughts of vacations than it does to listening! We're all guilty of that one! Hehe.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The trick is knowing when to shut up and listen - and unfortunately, some of the "talkers" I know don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.

And silence in a conversation isn't always a bad thing. Personally, I feel awkward during long periods of silence. I think I have to wrap my mind around the whole concept of "silent pauses" in a conversation a little better, because I sometimes have a tendency to say something dumb just to fill in the space.

Yep, another good call SL, we have to be receptive to the body-language as a metric for any communication. I think we do much of this subconsciously - and can be skillfully manipulated by those in the know - F2F salespeople are clever at this game.

The spoken words themselves actually comprise a VERY small part of communication. Your body language and tone of voice actually convey your message a LOT clearer than your words themselves.

You're right, though personally, I find this somewhat more draining than the more "intimate" conversations one might have. For me, it's information overload, there's a lot of extraneous stuff and waffle [do you have that word for rubbish?] Often what I've actually learnt about someone is neither worth knowing nor would be something I'd be likely to retain when I next meet them. What do you think? I'm very interested.

Speaking for myself, I pay attention to the little things. I actually do remember things like favorite colors, television shows, movies, etc. It also helps the other person to know that I was actually paying attention in the conversation, and I think it does show a certain level of caring. Now...if I could only get better at remembering faces with the names; it's that darned selective memory working against me!