I know barely any adults (late 20s, early 30s) who know how to do this. The concept of "conversationalist" is lost in modern society, you have to be watching whatever junk is on TV in order to communicate with people - god forbid you want to talk about something genuinely interesting.
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.
I just go and read a book now.
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).
Unless they have no way to escape. Then it's rude.
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.
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.
That's why people closet their real interests when talking to strangers.
In most ways, this has not been an improvement.
In my case, the result was the opposite. I acquired misanthropy by discovering that most people aren't worth the time and energy to talk to.
We're all in this together, and we all have our daily grinds and griefs.
Feel free to scoff, and scoff aloud at least because maybe someone else will hear you and let you know they're in the same boat.
My thought process runs like this:
> I've acknowledged our shared existence. Over. Done with. No mas. Can I go back to my book now? It's way more interesting than all this dreary existence-acknowledging crap.
I don't want someone to hear me and tell me I'm not alone. I already know that. I want to go back to my book or whatever.
That said, I think you need to revise what you consider "worth it" to mean - it's not necessarily the case that you'll learn some useful new skill or hear a great story or derive some other immediately-tangible benefit from talking to people.
Not every interaction is equally valuable, your time is precious and you are an autonomous human being perfectly within your rights to reject a given social interaction, or interactions.
But human interaction is not reducible to an ROI calculation. It's far too complex and multivariate to be computable by your or anyone else's brain - the best you can do is a rough approximation.
I guess this is scattershot, but the phrase: "Just because I find many people uninteresting does not make me a broken person lacking in basic skills" stuck with me because it alone does, in fact, provide us ample evidence that there is a problem. I would never describe you as "broken" - I'm an introvert, I get it - but if you find "many" people uninteresting, that is a priori evidence that it is you who is uninteresting.
I agree! The problem is that people are remarkably intolerant of those who are different. For instance, if you don't find randomly selected people all utterly fascinating, it must be that you're a broken person.
> but if you find "many" people uninteresting, that is a priori evidence that it is you who is uninteresting
Well. No. The two are not bijective. You can be a very interesting person to most people while still finding most other people not very interesting. The reverse is also true.
Indeed, that theoretically can be true. In every instance I have ever heard of, witnessed or been made aware of in any way, however, it holds. The plural of anecdote is not data, granted.
But ask any advice columnist. If you find other people boring as a matter of routine, that's not because they're boring, it's because you are.
Same as with any other part of life. If X keeps happening to you over and over again, and X is statistically uncommon, then either you have weird luck or X is related to something inside you, rather than something to do with the world at large.
Now that I write it, that sounds egotistical.
I've been an introvert forever. My parents in particular would tell me things like "conversation is a game of throw and catch". When I got older, I realized I wasn't shy -- I just hated making small talk. So I responded "Believe it or not, I know how to hold a conversation. I just don't like small talk."
Whenever I tried to steer the conversation towards what I considered more interesting topics, "Um, I didn't want to turn this into a philosophical conversation." Cool. We have divergent interests. I'm capable of keeping myself busy. But my parents would continued to repeat "you gotta throw back the ball sometimes".
So one day, as a teenager, I decided I would try this whole "congeniality" shtick. You know, for science. I was genuinely congenial for several months. I can assert this with confidence because people noticed. Several complimented me on how I came "out of my shell".
At the end of my experiment, I decided congeniality was exactly as overrated as I thought it would be. I've generally been schizotypal-by-default ever since, and never looked back.
Which is to say yes, I have considered that. And I'm pleased to have brought you an alternative perspective.
There is a fine line between using rational and reasoned thought to explain an unpopular way of thinking and using it to simply disguse being an asshole. My guess from reading your comments is that this isn't something that is really important to you, which is perfectly valid of course.
As an introvert that hates conversation myself, particularly small talk, I've come to realize that life is infinitely more enjoyable when you are aware of what side of the line people are placing you on at any given time.
I'm generally aware of where I stand, but isn't always the same as wanting to be on the polite-and-not-an-asshole side.
I'm not sure where you get that conclusion, but the source doesn't really matter - I think it's a bit backwards. Engaging with more people might broaden your perspective, but I don't think the outcome of engaging with people is more empathy. My experience is that empathy is something you should cultivate if you want to have a better understanding of others and their motivations. This is something you may want to do if you wish to have a relationship of some kind, or to influence their behavior.
You're not going to be wiser listening to someone go on about some sports team. You're not going to be wiser listening to them go on about their kids. You're not going to become wiser listening to them talk about whatever TV show they like. They're not going to be any wiser listening to you talk about what you did the other day. Everyone is just going to be bored.
Life is too short to waste on trying to fit in or pretending to share interests with people you don't.
This comment and its parent are incredibly disheartening, given that I assume the people writing them are of above average intelligence and likely have a very creative bent - people on the top end of "ideally educated" in some of the categories the article lists.
I would forward this: If you find yourself both agreeing with the comments, but often marginalized or ostracized in ways you do not enjoy, (and only you can know this for sure, but we've all been there) it isn't 'other people' that have the issues, it is you. You are lacking in the skills mentioned in #4, #5 and possibly #7. You may think this doesn't matter, but I'd put forward that you are missing a large part of a fulfilling life experience without them.
There is a fine line between sharing every possible interest with every possible person and completely shutting yourself off to new viewpoints, ideas and experiences simply because they aren't your preferred topics. You will learn from unexpected sources, because you yourself are changing, each and everyday. I would encourage everyone to take some of their precious time and converse with people that aren't simply mirrors to your own innate desires.
It won't matter a lick to me, but it most certainly will help you grow and learn.
What I've found is that taking your advice does not lead to the results you anticipate. It's really that simple. Upon experimentation, your hypothesis goes from "most certainly" producing positive results to "almost certainly not". Your expectations and reality are disjoint and you assert that the fault lies with me.
If I may return the favor and dispense unwanted advice, might I suggest some empathy? Take us at our word when we say that we've tried what you advocate and it hasn't produced what you say it will. Consider how this makes us feel and why we would choose to not continue to throw good money after bad (so to speak).
And hey! Maybe don't look to marginalize people because they are different from you. That'd be nice. We might actually consider taking you seriously once more.
As I said, I'm not indending disrespect, but I won't pretend that I can in any way understand what motivates you aside from the reasons I put forward. Sorry if that angers you, but that's just where I stand. We'll have to agree to disagree.
> Upon experimentation, your hypothesis goes from "most certainly" producing positive results to "almost certainly not". Your expectations and reality are disjoint and you assert that the fault lies with me.
Well, the simple reason I suggest such a thing is that, assuming you are varying people, situations, and topics, it is the only variable that remains constant throughout. While you may not agree with how I see things, perhaps you can at least understand why.
Rest assured, i can only have empathy for you if I view your passionate reaction to the topic from my position. It seems to be a very negative place. I don't wish you any ill will; simply trying to do the very thing I'm suggesting to everyone else.
Thanks for the conversation, particularly if you found it difficult.
And that's fine. You're not wrong. Your perspective is just incomplete. You erred in assuming that new experiences and ideas can come only from a particular set of sources.
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio.
We all interact with people that do not hold our beliefs every day. We actually do not need to go out of our way to associate with them, mainly because we all have to go to work. In fact, people in general have to work at making sure everyone around them thinks exactly the same way and most can not do that. We basically all have to talk to people about shit we don't care about all day.
It's called polite conversation and it isn't anything I care to engage in in my limited free time, which is of course limited by the aforementioned work where I'm forced to interact with people.
> I assume the people writing them are of above average intelligence and likely have a very creative bent
If you did actually believe this, you would have taken what has been said as, at least, another viewpoint. You didn't, you proceeded to say those holding this view are missing parts of life and proceeded to imply they were immature needed to grow as people.
To give an example from my life, a few years ago I realized I had become completely out of touch with "mainstream America," so I decided to make a project out of discovering why so many people live such apparently bland lives, watched so many television shows, liked fast-food chains, etc. Since then I've learned to relish conversations with people who seem to have nothing to offer me. I'll ask them probing questions and try to expand my own mental framework to incorporate a reality where their answers make sense.
Turns out a lot of people who hold positions of great responsibility, such as entrepreneurs, executives, and politicians, live quite boring lives by my standards, and I learned through this inquiry that there's a very good reason for this. Obviously this is a lossy generalization, but it seems to me that in many cases, because they are so burdened with risk in their work lives, they need to counterbalance this with total security and banality in their personal lives. And then others just see no reason to challenge themselves. C'est la vie!
On the flip side, I've also, like you, learned not to spend too much time with people who don't challenge me. Sometimes that means making difficult decisions, and sometimes it means maintaining a sour attitude temporarily. We all have our own energetic-emotional phase-space to navigate.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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
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.
people write here about being good listener, and encourage your counterparts to talk about them. this might be OK if you are trying at all costs to be liked by somebody else (ie find new friend). otherwise, be yourself, find interesting people that share your view with. and don't be desperate, worthy friendships take time to build, and are not meant to be had with everybody out there
I look at it in a different light, though. It's not a deficiency in their ability to have a conversation, it's a trait of the way that we are. We don't waste our time on people that don't interest us. That's bad in some ways and good in others, but it does make us the bad conversationalists, not them.
I'm not sure I agree that the purpose of conversation is to create "worthy friendships", either. Often, it's just to pass the time, or be polite, or to discover if there's a common ground for future business. Conversation is what you do with other people, not just with friends.
So how do we strive for quality? What makes a "quality" conversation? Is it what we talk about, or who we talk with?
Do what you love. You'll find everything you need there.
* Reading from a variety of sources (HN does provide a lot of this, click on more than just the tech articles).
* People in our age group seem to have more interest in being heard than interest in listening. Don't do that. Ask questions (which is in itself a good way to hold a conversation), even about things you wouldn't think you would be interested in.
* Learn to at least listen to opinions that differ from your own. Big bonus if you can dedicate energy to contemplating those opinions.
In addition:
* Nobody wants to hear about Game of Thrones or the latest computer game that you play. Entertainment media rarely makes for good conversation unless you share the specific entertainment piece in question (mostly sport); however, you are doing little for your future conversation ability by participating in an echo chamber.
* If you screw up people will probably forget about you, not remember you as an idiot. Don't be scared to practice on strangers.
* Keep your bloody phone in your pocket and ignore it.
This is really the only trick. People love to talk about themselves.
As the saying goes: "Interested people are interesting."
When people complain about uninteresting conversations, they often mean, "I wish that other dude would shut up so I could talk about the stuff I like!" They're not listening. If they were listening and interacting with what the other person has to say, they wouldn't be bored and frustrated.
Some people won't shut up at all, especially older ones. If you want to hear interesting things you might have to steer the conversation a little, so eg you can hear about how the city used to be in the past as opposed to how their doctor's visit this morning went. However, the most important part is to find the ones that want to talk and broadcast the same intent. (There is better luck when it's not just people going to/from work, those usually want to be left alone.)
People in their 20's are engaged primarily in mate selection an career building. Those are very focused and somewhat desperate endeavours, where random conversations with strangers are high risk and low payoff, particularly when talking with people in your own age group who are likely to want something from you, just as you are likely to want something from them. It's like being at one of those networking events where everyone is there to make connections that can help them but aren't able to offer much in return: an unpleasant waste of time.
Older people are much more pro-social. Their investment in their offspring will be enhanced by a more friendly, connected world, and they can afford to indulge themselves in random social connections. Human society is fundamentally kept intact by grandparents. The reason we have these ridiculously long lives is most likely because troops of early humans who had more grandparents around were better at transmitting culture to new generations.
I'm putting this in brutally evolutionary terms, and there is obviously much more to the story, but the evolutionary forces are always there, under the surface, and we can't just wish them away (however much we might like to.)
Actually, I think you're both right. The idea that young adults should be suspicious and selfish is limiting and wrong. But the idea that older adults have different motivations socially is spot-on. In part, even the introverts and misanthropes have learned to value just talking to people, eventually.
- a hobby-skill (playing piano, ping-pong, billiards, surfing)
- playing a team sport
- telling a joke
- defending one's self / fighting / disarming with humor
All the above designed to build confidence.