Beyond small talk: Study finds people enjoy deep conversations with strangers
phys.org
phys.org
You can say whatever you say knowing you can't be judged by or held to some constraint from the past.
If your views on euthanasia are changing, because you suddenly have a close elderly relative or an associate whose circumstances are changing, a stranger won't berate you for having attended church for most of your life, even though you advocated the church's ideals which included no support for euthanasia. You can just talk about that subject in the context of your current circumstances, needs, and beliefs.
That's liberating and likely to be informative.
If you want to try out or finesse a different political point of view, such as that capital gains should be taxed more or less, or the death penalty is immoral, or social security should be limited to people who have worked and paid taxes for a minimum of 7 years, you can try that with a stranger and just listen to what they say, without having to assure them that you are from a friendly tribe or that you have an open mind, because they won't know your income or your status or your voting record.
When you speak points of view in an anonymous guise, or at least, one that isn't tethered to any prior baggage, you gain an opportunity to refresh your understanding in ways that you normally don't get from people who have such well developed expectations about you that they can't really hear what you are saying.
The same is true in deeply personal matters such as affairs of the heart, and confessions of moral confusion and even complicity in crimes. For many people, it's not until they hear someone's completely independent echo of a picture they've painted of themself that they begin to see themselves in a different light.
The great thing about this process is it isn't limited to one stranger, in the same way that your conversations with your bff is limited to only your bff.
Strangers are everywhere, and once you know how to strike up a meaningful conversation with them, you can do it again and again.
If you've never had this kind of conversation with a stranger, how can you be sure you know who you are?
It's perceived to be significantly more difficult to approach strangers in the real world, and successful relationships seem to fix people into whatever patterns initiated it.
Successfully developing the ability to approach strangers in real life is more potent than anything online - it can be unhealthy, as with pickup artists, or joining evangelistic cults, mlm, and so on, but socialization at that level seems to be a common trait among highly interesting people.
And of course pure anonymity makes it possible to be an asshole without having to suffer the consequences.
Like someone else previously said, we need to invent a way to kick somebody's ass over the internet. Then we'll enjoy real time worldwide pleasant anonymity and thoughtful discussion.
It tells me if I should reply carefully and nicely because someone is just having a bad day or don't know the language - or if I should just drop the reply and flag instead.
My interpretation of this phenomenon is that significant (but subconscious) physical and social constraints are not removed from strangers who meet in person. There is risk and danger, there is wealth, language and vocalic register, and there is sexual politics. Humans evolved with these sociological pressures and most humans understand and conform to them.
But on the InterWobbles, people can be very wrong, flagrantly ignorant and completely inhumane without the probable damage to reputation (real-world personal cost).
Until their identities are leaked, of course... Then they realise the reputational cost of being wrong-headed, flagrantly ignorant, and inhumane. And they seek forgiveness ("escape from personal cost").
The InterWobbles have released the bottled demon and given us the 21st century's InterWobble Edition of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.[1]
[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm
It is absolutely amazing to go into a conversation as the person you want to be and gain what you want from it.
In the best case scenario, you are able to realize new aspects about yourself.
In the worst case scenario, you are able to express your thoughts with no repercussions, ala Fight Club's "single-serving friends".
> The same is true in deeply personal matters such as affairs of the heart, and confessions of moral confusion and even complicity in crimes.
what came to my mind is the conversation I had with someone who confessed they would rather tell their secrets to Amazon than their neighbor, because Amazon is more distant. What I didn't consider then is that distance is a proxy for strangeness in humans, and that's why such inversion may feel natural. We indeed know very little about the people in Amazon, but where it fails today is that megacorps and their constituents know (or can know) a lot more about us than the neighbour.
Also I believe holidays filled that role for kids. A new space of growth.
For anyone really, but especially as you come out of school and start making your way in the world that’s just such a powerful thing.
Thank you for reminding me of those nights, it really was a pleasant bit of nostalgia.
I'm pretty quiet, and reserved, but for some reason I always end up meeting people during my night walks and have had all manner of conversations, offers, and interactions. I think some people just need someone to talk to that won't judge them.
My recipe is the following: grab a drink from the nearest convenience store (ideally alcoholic), and set out into the night towards the busiest area you can find, and just watch the hustle and bustle.
Just a sample of the adventures I've had: spending a couple hours wandering the streets of Tokyo with a couple Danish tourists during their last night in the city.
Talking for a few hours in a park with an off-duty US military servicemen, after which he suggested we start running drugs from Mexico across the border -- no thank you.
However, one of the most interesting, jarring, and thought provoking interactions I had was with a young man, of obvious African descent. This took place in Bangkok. I was out on one of my night walks, and as usual stopped by a convenience store to grab a drink. I noticed the young man, sitting on the curb, if I recall correctly, having a smoke.
At the time, I was working in Bangkok as an American on a relatively cushy salary and high on life. So I walk over and strike up a conversation, expecting to hear about the adventures that led this gentleman to Thailand. So we chat for a bit, and I tell him about life in Thailand and working as an expat. I then ask him, "So what brought you out here?" He gave me a one word response, that made me realize how privileged I was. That word and his answer was, "war".
He went one to explain that his country undergoing some internal conflict, and he had fled to find a better life. Here I was, a relatively happy and well-paid American -- I really had no response other than listening to his story. We sat there a bit longer just talking about life -- two people from vastly different experiences, sitting on a convenience store curb and enjoying a chat and a drink.
No offense, but are you sure? Because the rest of your text sounds like you are absolutely not.
Still thought, must be quite a story in some circles.
In any case, wandering the busy streets late at night with a drink is a recepy for meeting new people. That is certainly true
If you do go, please make sure you have a tour guide. Downtown is safe enough, but if you decide to see the "real" city, you should know where you are going before you go there.
Edit: Just realized you made a comment earlier. Well, as we are discussing now -- I grew up in a low income area in inner-city Detroit and I am a person of color. I never really considered myself as privileged. It's all about perspective.
The commenter above might really enjoy talking to strangers, but it might be exhausting and require some alone time to recharge.
Separately, one-on-one conversations fit well with the "introvert" label, as opposed to socialising more in a group setting.
Definitely prefer six out of seven nights a week at home with just my family. Partner definitely likes getting out more, so she routinely walks with friends, etc.
Take the above example, and now apply it to human interaction. That's how it can be for introverts. It doesn't mean a person is shy or avoids social elements. It just means that it is absolutely draining. I can't speak for everyone, but for me, talking to another person or being out in public takes energy. I'm always trying to understand the situation, to not make any faux pas, to be engaged, and to enjoy -- and it's tiring. So I have my limits.
If I'm at a social event past my limit, I need to escape. I get tired, frustrated, and slight panic. Just get me home to re-energize and reflect.
My night time strolls allow me to control my exposure, while still allowing me to enjoy meeting new people.
If I have some free time, 9 times outta 10, I'm curled up with a good audio/book, playing chess, or gaming. But, I still enjoy and seek out human interaction. Hence my original comment to the post.
That being said, I can see how the poster would define himself as an introvert (avoiding social gatherings with a crowd), and be more comfortable alone or with 1-to-1 discussions (actually 3 people, since there is her friend as well). The adjective "complete" in "complete introvert" might be exaggeration though. :)
The problem was that every time I felt that I was impersonating a new character, and all that broke the fun of talking/joking to random people once I met them again by accident.
Its true that while at the public bus (long travel time) you can have those same conversations, but beware the fake friends or what do you want from the relationship.
Dont do it with an angry man, please dont.
“For every time you say club passwords like “Have a nice day” and “Weather’s awful today, eh?”, you yearn inside to say forbidden things like “Tell me something that makes you cry” or “What do you think deja vu is for?”. Face it, you even want to talk to that girl in the elevator. But what if that girl in the elevator (and the balding man who walks past your cubicle at work) are thinking the same thing? Who knows what you might learn from taking a chance on conversation with a stranger? Everyone carries a piece of the puzzle. Nobody comes into your life by mere coincidence. Trust your instincts. Do the unexpected. Find the others…”
-- Tim Leary [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/514216-admit-it-you-aren-t-...]
YMMV, but it's been my experience that small talk is a skill that you can exercise and has its own value, not simply something to be waited through until you can get to something of substance.
I used small talk to figure out if my passengers had something interesting that I'd be interested in knowing about. Standard Questions -> specific questions.
> YMMV, but it's been my experience that small talk is a skill that you can exercise and has its own value,
"The most important thing about learning to talk to strangers is practice. Taxi driving gave me lots of new people to talk to every day." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27835024 (submission: "The vital art of talking to strangers")
He commented how often the following question opened farmers up to a much deeper conversation that had nothing to do with grain silos. His opening question would often be "How goes the battle?"
Although he did well at selling, he is a person who is genuinely interested in others in a warm caring way. So I am sure it was his manner as well as the specific question. But I love the question as well.
How goes the battle? Immediately acknowledges that life isn't easy, that the things we struggle with are okay to talk about. However, if the person isn't in the mood to go deeper they can just respond with "fine", "alright" or "can't complain" and just move on without going deeper.
But asked in a genuine caring way, "how goes the battle?", invites a deeper more authentic response about struggles.
Not really. Most of the time, I am wishing that I did not have to talk to that person at all.
We were only in that room for 15-20 minutes, but I had some of the deepest most genuine conversation I’ve ever had in that sort period of time. After we left the room, we never spoke again. Something about the safety of blindness made us feel comfortable with each other.
If I had instead struck up an AIM chat or a phone call with this person, I guarantee the conversation topics would have been very different. The physical presence, our actual voices, the absence of light…something about that combination made the experience quite profound for my young self.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Small-Talk-Survival-meaningful-gracef...
ART is hosting an authentic relating circle twice a week for free on Zoom until the end of the year. Details here: https://authenticrelating.co/art-community-circles/
I’m not affiliated with ART but I have attended their circles and find them helpful for satiating that need for deep interactions, especially during the pandemic.
Most often, conversations never moved past the awkward stage. I've not accepted calls from them for many months now, but I did have a few interesting/memorable conversations on the app, from people in my own city, to people halfway around the world.
People just need to talk to someone who doesn't have ulterior motives, and without the need to maintain a relationship beyond the context of the conversation. Just being able to be honest without censorship, and to be exposed to direct criticism from someone who isn't afraid to hurt your feelings; just those things are healing and constructive.
As a counterpoint, I have found myself intentionally equivocating while talking about obscure programming topics because of my relationship with the person who I was having the conversation with and the fact that I knew that a lot of their identity was wrapped up in a particular position on that topic. You don't want to hurt someone who you want to talk to again.
Honest, deep exchanges with strangers can also be a crucible that finds people that you really do have a deep commonality with. If you're both completely unfiltered and still want to hang out with each other, that's a sign.
I sometimes think I could have kept going forever and be happy just subsisting except for all the casual drinking etc.
I know that some people prefer to keep to themselves, but as this study also underlines, the majority of people are social creatures and we thrive on interactions - even with strangers.
The first thing I ask is "Are you happy?"
The conversation becomes worthwhile every time.
Null#5911 in case anyone wishes to talk.
Somehow, I got told multiple times that I'm a friend or even their best friend, by people who I didn't think much about. Which isn't bad for me, but I always felt a bit sad for those people...
I say similar because the host is always the same person, but it's always an hour-long deep conversation with an anonymous guest about whatever they want to talk about.
I don't often listen to it because it's not something I can really leave on in the background (I end up paying too much attention to it) but when I do, I do enjoy it.
Unfortunately, I seem to have some other unknown quality that keeps people from making that initial approach. I am working on how to make that approach myself, but it often feels forced and I get nervous.
Participants could rate willingness to engage in dee conversation and you would quickly only keep the right kind of people on the platform.
People don't actually just go around talking to strangers, so if it was something everyone loved there must be a reason it doesn't happen more often.
I think this is a case where experimental or study context actually is really important.
If you're in an experimental context where you're either aware of the general scenario to occur, or that something unusual might occur, talking to a stranger is really different from out in the real world. That is, sitting in a lab room knowing that what you're about to do might be unusual, and is occurring in the context of a study, being monitored by researchers, is really different from being approached by a stranger with an unknown agenda at an unexpected moment.
Even the willingness to participate suggests a different scenario. The people willing to participate might be different, and in the very least are willing to do so in that moment. For instance, in the paper they asked people to approach others on a London train, but my guess is the people who would be most irritated by talking to a stranger (or having them talk to you) avoided the researchers entirely or declined to participate.
I think there are a lot of benefits to talking to strangers, but there can also be a lot of costs, and when it's occcurring in a totally unregulated environment can be slightly risky. I'm not at all suggesting people shouldn't talk to strangers but I think the study is being extremely misinterpreted. To me it's a prime example of how study context creates limitations to generalizability, something that should be discussed in introductory college psychology courses.