8 ms·
The Narrative Takeover section is lazy thinking and lazy writing. Nearly every sentence is a claim made in thin air, devoid of practical guidance. So much advi
by satisfice 4y ago
The Narrative Takeover section is lazy thinking and lazy writing. Nearly every sentence is a claim made in thin air, devoid of practical guidance.
So much advice about communication is couched in the language of victimhood vs unspecified aggressions. That’s fine for memes on LinkedIn, maybe. We should expect more from someone who studies psychology for a living.
No one should say “It’s not about me.” It’s always, for you, about you, first. You judge yourself, position yourself, posture yourself, plan your next move, on and on relentlessly. You must do this. Even the author of this piece wrote it for her own needs, first, and expressed a philosophy that makes her feel better.
Conversation is an exchange. When someone points a finger at a supposed “takeover,” that in and of itself, is attempt at a takeover. EVERY utterance can be interpreted as a takeover if you choose to see it that way. Or instead of takeover you can see it differently: as energy flow. Sometimes I talk to a friend who needs me to hear him. He indicates this by talking without stopping. He hasn’t “taken over,” though. He has signaled his need and I can choose to accept it or make a counter proposal of my own need.
A better way to have written about this would be for the author to stop blaming people for wanting to share anecdotes and connect in that way (which IS a kind of empathizing, regardless of what she claims). Instead, simply say “if you don’t make room to hear quiet narratives from ambivalent or timid people, then you may never hear them. If you care about these people, consider how your behavior might be disabling them.” In other words, it is all about me, and I am playing a First-Person Talker game as I live my life. So if I want be safe and happy I better do things that encourage the people my happiness depends upon to open up to me.
That is my choice, and it is a pragmatic choice, not a moral one. No moral order requires me to self-censor my voice, because if that were true then we would have to say that anyone who ever spoke up in a conversation was committing a sin, since anyone who breaks the silence has blocked others from talking.
I went on a date with a woman in 1991. I talked constantly. She seemed reluctant to say anything. We were married a few weeks later. I am still married to her 31 years later. After we were married she helped me learn how to make quiet space for her to share her thoughts with me. I do this because I choose for her to be happy; because it’s all about my own safety and happiness, which comes through her.
- b3morales 4y agoThat section is not wrong, it's just being implicit about the second-order choice that you allude to in your last sentence. You certainly don't have to do anything that the article suggests, unless your conversational partner, and your goals for the relationship require it.