8 ms·
Hmm, in my head, I model conversation as a game of who can get the mine the most "intimacy", if you will, while revealing the least about oneself. So risque top
by zrkrlc 7y ago
Hmm, in my head, I model conversation as a game of who can get the mine the most "intimacy", if you will, while revealing the least about oneself. So risque topics are, as the adjective suggests, high risk, but also high reward. Correspondingly, small talk is a lot of low risk, low reward back-and-forth. You don't have to be intimate with a stranger, but you need to stick your neck out if you want to progress beyond pleasantries.
Here's a longer piece about the whole topic of conversations that I wrote a while back: https://zrkrlc.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/a-long-guide-to-conversations/ https://zrkrlc.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/a-long-guide-to-conv...
- ineedasername 7y agoTrying to get the most out of another while giving little or nothing seems like a strange and rather mercenary way to approach interpersonal interactions. Could you explain how you arrive at this mode of communication?
- zrkrlc 7y agoWell, no. My point was that conversations are not zero-sum games. You produce intimacy via information exchanges, which you both benefit from, though there will always be an information asymmetry between you and your conversation partner. I know analysing social interactions is seen as a rather, if you will forgive the term, "autistic" (or worse, sociopathic) way of looking at things , but some people do not have the natural capacity for social interactions that the vast majority of the population enjoy. I myself have wondered for years if I lay on the autism spectrum before getting diagnosed with ADHD and so all this I had to learn explicitly from years of observation.
- loopz 7y agoNothing wrong with being autistic, but it's just one of many reference points and is no more or less valid than others. Analysing too much loses connection with others.
- authoritarian 7y ago>I know analysing social interactions is seen as a rather, if you will forgive the term, "autistic" That may be your perception of autism, but this statement is more akin to using "retarded" derogatorily than actually making a comparison. Autism is categorized by deficits in social interaction and repetitive thoughts or behaviorism. "Analyzing social interactions" is certainly not a standard symptom of autism, and depending on the severity of one's social deficit it may not even be possible for someone on the spectrum to do so without the help of a therapist/doctor/behavioral aid. I discovered I was on the spectrum this year, albeit at a relatively low level, and while I personally analyze social interactions a lot due to anxiety it absolutely shouldn't be seen as "rather autistic" as you say as that is a mischaracterization of autism
- ineedasername 7y agoI don't see anything wrong with analyzing social interactions. I'm not on the spectrum, and I still find value in it. My confusion what at what seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) as an approach to conversations that tried to min/max against information disclosure. You've clarified that though and it seems much more reasonable, although I'm still not sure why there must be information asymmetry. As an example, I just attended an office holiday party. Myself and a coworker I don't know well had a brief conversation on each other's family visit dynamics during the holiday season. I think we both fairly adequately covered our respective situations, and neither of us could come away thinking, "Wow, he/she knows all about my setup but I still don't know much about theirs". It was pretty equitable.
- krustyburger 7y agoIf your goal is to get others to share intimately without sharing intimately yourself, you will tend to seem insincere and manipulative.
- taneq 7y agoThat’s not just seeming insincere and manipulative.
- krustyburger 7y agoYou’re right, of course. But I wonder if the parent is aware other people can detect this sort of thing.
- perl4ever 7y agoIf you can't detect it in some cases, how would you know?
- taneq 7y agoObviously you can't, and the end result is that this dramatically amplifies the effect of catching someone out in an insincerity. The stronger your belief that someone is truthful, the larger a portion of their actions you need to re-examine once catching them out in a significant lie, and the longer it will take for you to re-build your original belief that they were generally truthful. (Statistics isn't my strong suit but I believe this is perfectly in line with modeling a person's trustworthiness as a Bayesian process?)
- skunkpocalypse 7y agoWhat makes you so sure they can?
- swiley 7y agoThis is part of why I try to just speak my mind. The great advantage of that is if people are nice they'll correct you when you say something really disturbing and maybe you'll notice bad things about yourself that you otherwise might have missed.
- Toury2d 7y agoThat is a trait I've seen in a lot of my autistic patients. Are you on the spectrum/have you been tested?
- mewpmewp2 7y agoI did not get the diagnosis, but I was very close. I hate talking and listening to people, but since it is important in workplace I do it and I view it as transactional because if I hate it and I would rather by nature not talk or listen why should I not try to use it as something as an attempt to benefit me. Of course I have also been diagnosed with depression and social anxiety. I think I excel in work interviews and first dates because I have time to plan for these scenarios, but I am terrible I'm group situations and day to day activities. Once I get the job I just work and try to avoid communication as much as possible.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jacobush 7y agoIf you find someone you can trust in the day-to-day environment, I have a hunch you could benefit greatly if you could confide this to someone. It could be "your friend you don't talk to" and both would know it's because you don't like talking much.
- asveikau 7y agoI don't recommend having only one such person if you have depression or anxiety. Things can go poorly should things ever go sour with a small number (~1) of trusted friends. And of course a network of friends while helpful is not a 1-for-1 substitute for say, a therapist.
- asveikau 7y agoSome personal advice: stop viewing your interactions in this transactional way and just be yourself. Stop giving a shit who reveals what and the perceived balance or imbalance of the same. Be kind and be generous.
- BurningFrog 7y agoThe value of "just being ourself" depends greatly on who you are...
- asveikau 7y agoIf you are hung up on evaluating everyone's relative value, then maybe. But I think that goes counter to the advice.
- throwawaypa123 7y ago1. just be yourself 2. Be kind and be generous hmmmm? one does not follow 2
- mewpmewp2 7y agoJust pretend that you are being yourself. This should satisfy the person above as long as he does not find out.
- asveikau 7y agoI think you may underestimate how much human nature is more towards kindness and generosity. I think a lot of us have negative experiences in childhood and similar younger stages, and it causes us to be less kind, less generous as a sort of defense mechanism. When you realize that the defense mechanism isn't actually necessary, you realize there is more space for kindness, and maybe that is actually your authentic self beneath.
- zrkrlc 7y agoI know I don't sound like it, but I completely get where you're coming from. It's weird and rather sketchy to find out that someone you're talking to is just following rules in their head. It's just that for people like me, conversations are not primitive actions. We need an explicit mental model to anchor ourselves, and while that doesn't excuse predatory behaviour, models are still just tools at the end of the day and some people need them to be seen as "normal".
- taneq 7y agoI’ve always seen it as a cooperative game to increase mutual trust through shared experiences and confidences.
- kqr 7y agoYou might be interested in the opposite perspective, too. Some authors believe conversation (and indeed nearly everything we do) is an art of posturing. We converse because we want to show how eligible mates we are. We want others to know how intelligent we are, or how brave we are, or how resourceful we are. I highly recommend reading "The Elephant in the Brain" for more about that. It starts a bit slowly but then picks up!
- rocqua 7y agoIn my experience, the opposite works soo much better. Put your true self out there and people will respect that massively, be willing to trust you, and be willing to open up to you. Obviously, you need to have some sense of the other person, and whether they will respond well. But really, most human beings are decent. And those who aren't, mostly aren't worth knowing at all.
- screye 7y agoI find it to be the other way around. Revealing "intimate" things about yourself seems to be the easiest way for others to believe that you consider them trustworthy for almost zero cost. "u/screye trusts me enough to tell something they are vulnerable about." Or on a more selfish note, "I now hold leverage on r/screye, so I shall continue engaging with them from a position of assumed power" or lastly, "I can share something intimate about myself with u/screye because I know something just as important seeming, so they would not use it against me" It works surprisingly well to fast track the building of a relationship with any acquaintance. Ofc, I put intimate in "quotes" because while the details sound intimate to the listener, they are often carefully chosen to be ones that do not cause value judgements for my current self nor are they the real insecurities (or at least not present ones) which I hold far closer to my heart. But, the person I'm talking to doesn't need to know that.