8 ms·

Why else do you think "conversationalist" is lost in modern society? I know countless people who are wonderful conversationalists. Something to consider... the

by beat 12y ago

Why else do you think "conversationalist" is lost in modern society? I know countless people who are wonderful conversationalists. Something to consider... the first step to good conversation is being genuinely interested in other people's interests. If they're talking about something you don't know, take it as an opportunity to learn. Sneering at the values of others is poor attitude, which leads to poor conversation. If you really believe people only want to discuss "junk on TV", and that it's not "genuinely interesting", you're forgetting that it's interesting to them. Declaring an objective view that makes you superior and them inferior is, well, rude. A little more about tv, weather, and other "uninteresting" subjects here - conversation is about finding common ground, something to talk about. We talk about the weather, or tv, because it's a place to start. It gets the conversation rolling, to help us discover bits about each other, and eventually find that "genuinely interesting" common ground.

cssmoo 12y ago
Can't say I've experienced that. It always seems to decline into the size of a celebrity's arse. Even one of my friends, an ex-physicist and current private jet pilot has nothing to say past the size of an arse. I just go and read a book now.
- zamalek 12y ago
  > It always seems to decline into the size of a celebrity's arse That's the type of issue I typically encounter. You can only talk one subject for so long, especially if the conversation has more than two participants (as diving too deep into a specific subject risks boring everyone else).
  - beat 12y ago
    If you can have a deep conversation, I'm a big fan of boring the other people so they'll go away and leave us to our conversation! Unless they have no way to escape. Then it's rude.
- beat 12y ago
  Celebrities are an important part of generic conversation... they give us someone to gossip about that neither of us actually know. Public shaming is an important (if offensive) social ritual. That said, just about anyone can talk about something other than Kim Kardashian. No one actually cares about her. Talking about something like a celebrity's arse is a way of avoiding talking about stuff we actually care about - as someone else noted in this thread, the fear of being seen as uninteresting, or weird, or an outsider, if you talk about stuff that matters to you. The way to get people to talk about what they care about is to ask them. Your friend the physicist/pilot? Ask him about physics. Ask him about airplanes. Ask him about his clients as a pilot. Pretty soon, he'll be talking about much more interesting things - interesting to him, and probably interesting to you. And all you have to do is listen, and he'll think you're awesome.
  - kaybe 12y ago
    With some people that's really hard. They don't see your interest or disinterest in a topic at all, even if you make it really really obvious (not looking at you, one word answers and even descending into rudeness vs making eye contact and participating in the conversation). Some people just want to complain about trivial things, even if they could tell you about antarctic expeditions instead.
padobson 12y ago
It's interesting that the great limiter of conversation may be the fear of being objectively labeled "uninteresting" by your counterpart in the conversation. There was an aid in a lab at my school who would routinely berate students when he was programming or playing a video game on his laptop: Student: "Is that C#?" Aid: "What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you ask questions you already know the answer to?" The aid was rejecting a universal ice-breaker because, in his mind, it was beneath him. I would imagine he didn't have very diverse conversations.
- beat 12y ago
  Worse than being labeled "uninteresting" is being labeled an outcast. That's why people closet their real interests when talking to strangers.
  - mhurron 12y ago
    I've long since become accustomed to the fact that people around me don't share the same interests, and I don't share theirs. There's basically no reason to try to have a conversation with people.
    - orng 12y ago
      If you only interact with people who mirror yourself you will live your life in a bubble of sorts. I say embrace the differences. Argue your world view and listen to theirs. In the end you will be wiser than you were before.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        I used to think this way. Becoming "wiser" meant realizing that most people are in fact incredibly boring and thoroughly uninteresting to me. In most ways, this has not been an improvement.
        Kalium 12y ago
bobcostas55 12y ago
>the first step to good conversation is being genuinely interested in other people's interests I'm skeptical of this advice. Coleridge was one of the most famous conversationalists ever (there are multiple books recording his after-dinner chats), and his "conversations" were pretty much monologues. I think being interesting yourself is more important than being interested.
- beat 12y ago
  That's a good point. Frankly, I'm more of a talker than a listener myself. But that said, I really do find other people's interests to be interesting and valuable to me. Part of "being interesting yourself" is being aware of when your listeners are and are not interested. That is itself a listening skill. If you can educate and entertain, wonderful! But to do that, you have to be continually aware of your listener's attention. That can be really difficult for the talkative extrovert. You're really on point, though - the balance of a conversation has to be mutually agreed by the conversationalists. It doesn't have to be equal, and probably shouldn't be. And, since most people aren't really good at conversation, being the one who is good, who is interesting and sensitive, can be a relief to others.
Kalium 12y ago
> If they're talking about something you don't know, take it as an opportunity to learn. Are we not permitted to be disinterested in subjects we are not ignorant of? I know how football, baseball, basketball, and hockey work. I do not find them interesting to discuss. I am also not interested in being "educated" on them because someone else finds them interesting to discuss. I do not find the existence of passion on someone else's part to be a compelling motivation for me to expend energy indulging them. Not all of us share your belief that conversation is valuable for its own sake. If the options on offer are conversation on subjects I find bereft of interesting content and silence, I will take silence every single time. Especially when there's a magazine or book with content I do find interesting that I could be reading.
- run4yourlives2 12y ago
  There is a difference between not enjoying a particular topic and extending that feeling onto the person speaking as well. >I do not find the existence of passion on someone else's part to be a compelling motivation for me to expend energy indulging them. Why not? Certainly, if you were speaking about something you were passionate about, would you not agree that I would learn at least a little bit of something by trying to grasp the source and fuel of your passion? Could I not relate quite directly if you say "Space is so amazing due to its complexity and movement..." if I replace that with "Football is so amazing due to its complexity and movement..."? Have I not just related to you as a fellow human in a meaningful way? Has making this connection not just better my understand of what drives my own passion and interests? Surely you cannot be ready to say that you have learned all there is worth knowing about yourself and are now stagnant in desire and interest? Why close the door on an opportunity to learn? I find it incredibly interesting (and admittedly, perplexing) that you see the value of gaining knowledge from a book but see limited value in gaining knowledge from another human.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    > Why not? As a rule, the intellectual return on energy invested is less than what I would get from picking up my phone and going back to my ebook. > Certainly, if you were speaking about something you were passionate about, would you not agree that I would learn at least a little bit of something by trying to grasp the source and fuel of your passion? What if I already understand that, and find it uninteresting to me? Am I now obligated to review it all over again, because someone else hopes that I will have a Damascene conversion that failed to happen the previous fifty times someone went on about how much they love football? > Have I not just related to you as a fellow human in a meaningful way? Perhaps it's meaningful for you. That doesn't make it meaningful for me. I don't consider the sort of compulsive extroversion you seem to be in favor of to be a meaningful or valuable thing for me. > Surely you cannot be ready to say that you have learned all there is worth knowing about yourself and are now stagnant in desire and interest? Why close the door on an opportunity to learn? Because the alternative is not "not learning", as you seem to think. The alternative is investing my time and energy in something that I know has a much greater probability of being valuable to me. Bluntly, I don't share your priorities. This does not make me a broken person. I am not broken. I do not need your "fixing". Did you read the article "When Nerds Collide" posted a few days ago? You should. Read it here: https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c Now I'll quote a section for you: > Humans are social animals, and part of what makes a social species social is that its members place a high priority on signaling their commitment to other members of their species. Weirdoes’ priorities are different; our primary commitment is to an idea or a project or a field of inquiry. Species-membership commitment doesn’t just take a back seat, it’s in the trunk with a bag over its head. I'm one of those weirdos. You aren't. That's fine. Stop trying to force me to be like you.

by beat 12y ago

cssmoo 12y ago

Can't say I've experienced that. It always seems to decline into the size of a celebrity's arse. Even one of my friends, an ex-physicist and current private jet pilot has nothing to say past the size of an arse. I just go and read a book now.

zamalek 12y ago
> It always seems to decline into the size of a celebrity's arse That's the type of issue I typically encounter. You can only talk one subject for so long, especially if the conversation has more than two participants (as diving too deep into a specific subject risks boring everyone else).
- beat 12y ago
  If you can have a deep conversation, I'm a big fan of boring the other people so they'll go away and leave us to our conversation! Unless they have no way to escape. Then it's rude.
beat 12y ago
Celebrities are an important part of generic conversation... they give us someone to gossip about that neither of us actually know. Public shaming is an important (if offensive) social ritual. That said, just about anyone can talk about something other than Kim Kardashian. No one actually cares about her. Talking about something like a celebrity's arse is a way of avoiding talking about stuff we actually care about - as someone else noted in this thread, the fear of being seen as uninteresting, or weird, or an outsider, if you talk about stuff that matters to you. The way to get people to talk about what they care about is to ask them. Your friend the physicist/pilot? Ask him about physics. Ask him about airplanes. Ask him about his clients as a pilot. Pretty soon, he'll be talking about much more interesting things - interesting to him, and probably interesting to you. And all you have to do is listen, and he'll think you're awesome.
- kaybe 12y ago
  With some people that's really hard. They don't see your interest or disinterest in a topic at all, even if you make it really really obvious (not looking at you, one word answers and even descending into rudeness vs making eye contact and participating in the conversation). Some people just want to complain about trivial things, even if they could tell you about antarctic expeditions instead.

padobson 12y ago

It's interesting that the great limiter of conversation may be the fear of being objectively labeled "uninteresting" by your counterpart in the conversation. There was an aid in a lab at my school who would routinely berate students when he was programming or playing a video game on his laptop: Student: "Is that C#?" Aid: "What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you ask questions you already know the answer to?" The aid was rejecting a universal ice-breaker because, in his mind, it was beneath him. I would imagine he didn't have very diverse conversations.

beat 12y ago
Worse than being labeled "uninteresting" is being labeled an outcast. That's why people closet their real interests when talking to strangers.
- mhurron 12y ago
  I've long since become accustomed to the fact that people around me don't share the same interests, and I don't share theirs. There's basically no reason to try to have a conversation with people.
  - orng 12y ago
    If you only interact with people who mirror yourself you will live your life in a bubble of sorts. I say embrace the differences. Argue your world view and listen to theirs. In the end you will be wiser than you were before.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      I used to think this way. Becoming "wiser" meant realizing that most people are in fact incredibly boring and thoroughly uninteresting to me. In most ways, this has not been an improvement.
      - Kalium 12y ago

bobcostas55 12y ago

>the first step to good conversation is being genuinely interested in other people's interests I'm skeptical of this advice. Coleridge was one of the most famous conversationalists ever (there are multiple books recording his after-dinner chats), and his "conversations" were pretty much monologues. I think being interesting yourself is more important than being interested.

beat 12y ago
That's a good point. Frankly, I'm more of a talker than a listener myself. But that said, I really do find other people's interests to be interesting and valuable to me. Part of "being interesting yourself" is being aware of when your listeners are and are not interested. That is itself a listening skill. If you can educate and entertain, wonderful! But to do that, you have to be continually aware of your listener's attention. That can be really difficult for the talkative extrovert. You're really on point, though - the balance of a conversation has to be mutually agreed by the conversationalists. It doesn't have to be equal, and probably shouldn't be. And, since most people aren't really good at conversation, being the one who is good, who is interesting and sensitive, can be a relief to others.

Kalium 12y ago

> If they're talking about something you don't know, take it as an opportunity to learn. Are we not permitted to be disinterested in subjects we are not ignorant of? I know how football, baseball, basketball, and hockey work. I do not find them interesting to discuss. I am also not interested in being "educated" on them because someone else finds them interesting to discuss. I do not find the existence of passion on someone else's part to be a compelling motivation for me to expend energy indulging them. Not all of us share your belief that conversation is valuable for its own sake. If the options on offer are conversation on subjects I find bereft of interesting content and silence, I will take silence every single time. Especially when there's a magazine or book with content I do find interesting that I could be reading.

run4yourlives2 12y ago
There is a difference between not enjoying a particular topic and extending that feeling onto the person speaking as well. >I do not find the existence of passion on someone else's part to be a compelling motivation for me to expend energy indulging them. Why not? Certainly, if you were speaking about something you were passionate about, would you not agree that I would learn at least a little bit of something by trying to grasp the source and fuel of your passion? Could I not relate quite directly if you say "Space is so amazing due to its complexity and movement..." if I replace that with "Football is so amazing due to its complexity and movement..."? Have I not just related to you as a fellow human in a meaningful way? Has making this connection not just better my understand of what drives my own passion and interests? Surely you cannot be ready to say that you have learned all there is worth knowing about yourself and are now stagnant in desire and interest? Why close the door on an opportunity to learn? I find it incredibly interesting (and admittedly, perplexing) that you see the value of gaining knowledge from a book but see limited value in gaining knowledge from another human.
- Kalium 12y ago
  > Why not? As a rule, the intellectual return on energy invested is less than what I would get from picking up my phone and going back to my ebook. > Certainly, if you were speaking about something you were passionate about, would you not agree that I would learn at least a little bit of something by trying to grasp the source and fuel of your passion? What if I already understand that, and find it uninteresting to me? Am I now obligated to review it all over again, because someone else hopes that I will have a Damascene conversion that failed to happen the previous fifty times someone went on about how much they love football? > Have I not just related to you as a fellow human in a meaningful way? Perhaps it's meaningful for you. That doesn't make it meaningful for me. I don't consider the sort of compulsive extroversion you seem to be in favor of to be a meaningful or valuable thing for me. > Surely you cannot be ready to say that you have learned all there is worth knowing about yourself and are now stagnant in desire and interest? Why close the door on an opportunity to learn? Because the alternative is not "not learning", as you seem to think. The alternative is investing my time and energy in something that I know has a much greater probability of being valuable to me. Bluntly, I don't share your priorities. This does not make me a broken person. I am not broken. I do not need your "fixing". Did you read the article "When Nerds Collide" posted a few days ago? You should. Read it here: https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c Now I'll quote a section for you: > Humans are social animals, and part of what makes a social species social is that its members place a high priority on signaling their commitment to other members of their species. Weirdoes’ priorities are different; our primary commitment is to an idea or a project or a field of inquiry. Species-membership commitment doesn’t just take a back seat, it’s in the trunk with a bag over its head. I'm one of those weirdos. You aren't. That's fine. Stop trying to force me to be like you.