5 ms·

I’m quite the chatterbox and I love talking to strangers. Even if I will never see them again. I do it quite often. I feel it really adds more fun and meaning a

by cpach 4y ago

I’m quite the chatterbox and I love talking to strangers. Even if I will never see them again. I do it quite often. I feel it really adds more fun and meaning as I navigate through my little town, or the big city, doing everyday things that could otherwise be quite boring. So at least to me this article rings true.

gausswho 4y ago
I also seek out interactions with people I don't know. I'm quite practiced at making it natural and unscary for the other person. Usually never see them again, and that's ok and even desired. There's something very satisfying about it, like I'm sharing a moment with the same person each time but in a different recombination of the whole of us. I strive to keep a regular flow of such interactions coming and I find myself getting ambiguously down if they start to dwindle.
- flappyeagle 4y ago
  Any tips? I can usually carry a conversation but hard to think of a reason to start one
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    A random observation à la Seinfeld is always good.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Say what you feel, be genuine. Be curious about them - including, read the situation. If they are anxiously texting, or looking otherwise like they wouldn't want to be disturbed, don't. And don't force it - there's not always something to say. It's not hard, there's no secret code; it's very basic. Most of the problem is anxiety. As with anything new, you'll get over it as it becomes familiar. Be patient with yourself. The bus is late, again, say 'Not again! Are the other buses always late?' Their fingernail polish catches your eye, say, 'hey - that's great. I love the color/design/etc.' People don't always respond, some might even look at you strangely - oh well!
    - MrVandemar 4y ago
      > People don't always respond, some might even look at you strangely - oh well! Why do you assume you're someone worth having a random conversation with at all? This is a sincere question. In my experience of people trying to engage me in conversation, none of them are worth the time. At best I've had a social interaction that basically amounted to being on hold on the phone for five minutes while I struggle to work out what these people want and I'm usually left none the wiser; at worst I've had to listen to idiots segue from discussing the weather to holding forth on a variety of lunatic-fringe causes. Time wasted. On the rare times I've tried to engage people in conversation they react like I would: impatience that I'm wasting their time, and/or blank looks. I'd really discourage anyone trying to randomly engage people in conversation unless you're sure you really have some kind of shared interest. IE, you're at a gig, you might imagine then that you could have a meaningful conversation with someone there about the band you are both there to listen to.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Not parent, but the idea that a conversation with a stranger has inherit worth is tied to two ideas that I hold: people have inherit worth, and that can be exchanged through communication. I find it relatively easy now to find points of commonality with most people I talk to. Some of this could be explained by the value I place on the intangible feeling of understanding and being understood might be an outlier too. You're absolutely right too in that if you're repeatedly not clicking with someone it probably isn't worth it to keep the conversation going, but even then there are exceptions. I've seen it take several attempts before a conversation takes flight and sometimes even then it dips back into the mundane only to pick back up again a minute or two later. However, people are much less likely to try to find common points of interest if the person they speak to assumes they're an idiot.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        > Why do you assume you're someone worth having a random conversation with at all? ... > On the rare times I've tried to engage people in conversation they react like I would: impatience that I'm wasting their time, and/or blank looks. > I'd really discourage anyone trying to randomly engage people in conversation unless you're sure you really have some kind of shared interest. In my experience, the conversations are almost always very positive. Others report positive experiences and find it worthwhile. That suggests you are sadly missing something. The odd thing is, you seem to want to stop others from having these positive experiences. I reject any question about my worth or anyone's 'worth'. Perhaps part of the problem is that you are thinking about 'worth', and so judgmentally and dubiously, that people don't respond well. People pick up on those signals; they respond poorly to being judged. Or perhaps you are judging your own worth, which would be sad. I find that my attitude and emotion greatly influences how the conversations go. Especially, give people space to flourish, be curious about them, and you will be amazed at what is inside - worlds of knowledge, insight and creativity that you never imagined. They are in you too, I'm sure.
  - xen2xen1 4y ago
    "man you do that really fast, you must do that a lot!". Typing, swiping at the checkout, asking "would you like fries with that", look to see what struggle they might be having, or what might annoy them. Get into their space and see what is going on and commiserate.
  - MrVandemar 4y ago
    My tip: don't start. Random people coming up to me, usually stating something perfectly obvious that doesn't need stating ("Cool Hat!/Hey it's Hot Today/How about the footy eh?"), and then trying to converse on a variety of boring subjects (the weather/politics/footy/where I bought my hat/vaccines are evil/Jesus Christ is Our Savior) is a colossal waste of my CPU time. Don't be that annoying person. Live and let live.
    - to1y 4y ago
      I agree. Most people who do this are introverted/shy by nature unhappy with it and this is their method of proving to themselves and the world that they're not. However it ends up being just as awkward and an equal waste of time because it lacks genuine emotion. Don't say anything and be content with it unless it's something you truly want to express. I.e. whatever is natural for you is probably natural for them.
      - flappyeagle 4y ago
        Why do you assume it lacks genuine emotion? What if someone (e.g. me) is simply unpracticed at expressing it?
pat2man 4y ago
Me too but when I was younger I hated it. It was definitely centered around a fear of being rejected or ridiculed. I eventually learned that my fear was unfounded. Possibly a good use of cognitive behavioral therapy.
- wpietri 4y ago
  For me my fears were richly justified by experience. Casual conversation with strangers is both complex and subtle, and particularly requires specific face and body language. I think neurotypicals underestimate the complexity because it comes naturally to them. These days I'm fine at it and have no fear. But getting rid of the fear took getting good at it and doing it enough to compensate for those older experiences.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I'm wary of claims that neurotypicals are somehow better at it. Seems more likely that nobody is as good as most everyone assumes they are. That is, self assessment is a known hard problem. Assessment of others would have many of the same traps.
    - lazide 4y ago
      There are well recognized patterns in specific types of ‘neuro divergents’ that are fundamental to the conditions and that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to recognize or process common social cues in useful ways. It makes them categorically have a much harder time in this area, for those categories. What you’re saying is essentially ‘meh, don’t just assume you are hallucinating sometimes just because you’re schizophrenic’. Maybe? but if they think they are, they very well might be right.
      - taeric 4y ago
        Fair. My wariness comes from knowing a large number of people that claim to have these complications, but are also just rude people. Which is to say, they may be divergent. That doesn't do much to suggest that others are "better" at this. Turns out that life is hard for most everyone.
marcodiego 4y ago
I knew people who loved doing that. One of them told me recently that conspiracism has ruined the experience. It is very hard to talk to someone today without eventually hearing a "Did you know that" followed by a baseless conspiracy theory.
- cheschire 4y ago
  Yep, we used to have taboo topics, but the overton window is massive these days.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    But maybe it’s a good thing that people say these things out loud so we can discuss them and maybe convince them otherwise? Or learn that in some cases they might be right?
    - cheschire 4y ago
      Sure, if you have patience and energy for those sorts of tug-of-war type conversations.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Not really. It is not that we can convince then. And it is mostly that the world moved toward these and that they won at convincing others.
    - marcodiego 4y ago
      This doesn't work that well. Conspiracists won't change their mind despite any evidence. Unless you're a very good speaker, trying to argue with them will only give them a "stage" to profess their ideas. Arguing against an irrational but skilled speaker will only benefit the unreasonable one, specially if you arguments are simple and technical: most people don't understand simplicity or technicalities; but get hypnotized by voice, fear, indignation and a feeling of "if he is that person is right them I'm screwed!" The best way to counter conspiracists is (I think) leaving them alone and spread rationality among the ones who are still not sick or can be cured.

by cpach 4y ago

gausswho 4y ago

I also seek out interactions with people I don't know. I'm quite practiced at making it natural and unscary for the other person. Usually never see them again, and that's ok and even desired. There's something very satisfying about it, like I'm sharing a moment with the same person each time but in a different recombination of the whole of us. I strive to keep a regular flow of such interactions coming and I find myself getting ambiguously down if they start to dwindle.

flappyeagle 4y ago
Any tips? I can usually carry a conversation but hard to think of a reason to start one
- HPsquared 4y ago
  A random observation à la Seinfeld is always good.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Say what you feel, be genuine. Be curious about them - including, read the situation. If they are anxiously texting, or looking otherwise like they wouldn't want to be disturbed, don't. And don't force it - there's not always something to say. It's not hard, there's no secret code; it's very basic. Most of the problem is anxiety. As with anything new, you'll get over it as it becomes familiar. Be patient with yourself. The bus is late, again, say 'Not again! Are the other buses always late?' Their fingernail polish catches your eye, say, 'hey - that's great. I love the color/design/etc.' People don't always respond, some might even look at you strangely - oh well!
  - MrVandemar 4y ago
    > People don't always respond, some might even look at you strangely - oh well! Why do you assume you're someone worth having a random conversation with at all? This is a sincere question. In my experience of people trying to engage me in conversation, none of them are worth the time. At best I've had a social interaction that basically amounted to being on hold on the phone for five minutes while I struggle to work out what these people want and I'm usually left none the wiser; at worst I've had to listen to idiots segue from discussing the weather to holding forth on a variety of lunatic-fringe causes. Time wasted. On the rare times I've tried to engage people in conversation they react like I would: impatience that I'm wasting their time, and/or blank looks. I'd really discourage anyone trying to randomly engage people in conversation unless you're sure you really have some kind of shared interest. IE, you're at a gig, you might imagine then that you could have a meaningful conversation with someone there about the band you are both there to listen to.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Not parent, but the idea that a conversation with a stranger has inherit worth is tied to two ideas that I hold: people have inherit worth, and that can be exchanged through communication. I find it relatively easy now to find points of commonality with most people I talk to. Some of this could be explained by the value I place on the intangible feeling of understanding and being understood might be an outlier too. You're absolutely right too in that if you're repeatedly not clicking with someone it probably isn't worth it to keep the conversation going, but even then there are exceptions. I've seen it take several attempts before a conversation takes flight and sometimes even then it dips back into the mundane only to pick back up again a minute or two later. However, people are much less likely to try to find common points of interest if the person they speak to assumes they're an idiot.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > Why do you assume you're someone worth having a random conversation with at all? ... > On the rare times I've tried to engage people in conversation they react like I would: impatience that I'm wasting their time, and/or blank looks. > I'd really discourage anyone trying to randomly engage people in conversation unless you're sure you really have some kind of shared interest. In my experience, the conversations are almost always very positive. Others report positive experiences and find it worthwhile. That suggests you are sadly missing something. The odd thing is, you seem to want to stop others from having these positive experiences. I reject any question about my worth or anyone's 'worth'. Perhaps part of the problem is that you are thinking about 'worth', and so judgmentally and dubiously, that people don't respond well. People pick up on those signals; they respond poorly to being judged. Or perhaps you are judging your own worth, which would be sad. I find that my attitude and emotion greatly influences how the conversations go. Especially, give people space to flourish, be curious about them, and you will be amazed at what is inside - worlds of knowledge, insight and creativity that you never imagined. They are in you too, I'm sure.
- xen2xen1 4y ago
  "man you do that really fast, you must do that a lot!". Typing, swiping at the checkout, asking "would you like fries with that", look to see what struggle they might be having, or what might annoy them. Get into their space and see what is going on and commiserate.
- MrVandemar 4y ago
  My tip: don't start. Random people coming up to me, usually stating something perfectly obvious that doesn't need stating ("Cool Hat!/Hey it's Hot Today/How about the footy eh?"), and then trying to converse on a variety of boring subjects (the weather/politics/footy/where I bought my hat/vaccines are evil/Jesus Christ is Our Savior) is a colossal waste of my CPU time. Don't be that annoying person. Live and let live.
  - to1y 4y ago
    I agree. Most people who do this are introverted/shy by nature unhappy with it and this is their method of proving to themselves and the world that they're not. However it ends up being just as awkward and an equal waste of time because it lacks genuine emotion. Don't say anything and be content with it unless it's something you truly want to express. I.e. whatever is natural for you is probably natural for them.
    - flappyeagle 4y ago
      Why do you assume it lacks genuine emotion? What if someone (e.g. me) is simply unpracticed at expressing it?

pat2man 4y ago

Me too but when I was younger I hated it. It was definitely centered around a fear of being rejected or ridiculed. I eventually learned that my fear was unfounded. Possibly a good use of cognitive behavioral therapy.

wpietri 4y ago
For me my fears were richly justified by experience. Casual conversation with strangers is both complex and subtle, and particularly requires specific face and body language. I think neurotypicals underestimate the complexity because it comes naturally to them. These days I'm fine at it and have no fear. But getting rid of the fear took getting good at it and doing it enough to compensate for those older experiences.
- taeric 4y ago
  I'm wary of claims that neurotypicals are somehow better at it. Seems more likely that nobody is as good as most everyone assumes they are. That is, self assessment is a known hard problem. Assessment of others would have many of the same traps.
  - lazide 4y ago
    There are well recognized patterns in specific types of ‘neuro divergents’ that are fundamental to the conditions and that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to recognize or process common social cues in useful ways. It makes them categorically have a much harder time in this area, for those categories. What you’re saying is essentially ‘meh, don’t just assume you are hallucinating sometimes just because you’re schizophrenic’. Maybe? but if they think they are, they very well might be right.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Fair. My wariness comes from knowing a large number of people that claim to have these complications, but are also just rude people. Which is to say, they may be divergent. That doesn't do much to suggest that others are "better" at this. Turns out that life is hard for most everyone.

marcodiego 4y ago

I knew people who loved doing that. One of them told me recently that conspiracism has ruined the experience. It is very hard to talk to someone today without eventually hearing a "Did you know that" followed by a baseless conspiracy theory.

cheschire 4y ago
Yep, we used to have taboo topics, but the overton window is massive these days.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  But maybe it’s a good thing that people say these things out loud so we can discuss them and maybe convince them otherwise? Or learn that in some cases they might be right?
  - cheschire 4y ago
    Sure, if you have patience and energy for those sorts of tug-of-war type conversations.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Not really. It is not that we can convince then. And it is mostly that the world moved toward these and that they won at convincing others.
  - marcodiego 4y ago
    This doesn't work that well. Conspiracists won't change their mind despite any evidence. Unless you're a very good speaker, trying to argue with them will only give them a "stage" to profess their ideas. Arguing against an irrational but skilled speaker will only benefit the unreasonable one, specially if you arguments are simple and technical: most people don't understand simplicity or technicalities; but get hypnotized by voice, fear, indignation and a feeling of "if he is that person is right them I'm screwed!" The best way to counter conspiracists is (I think) leaving them alone and spread rationality among the ones who are still not sick or can be cured.