The art of having conversations

[PuddleRiver]

oh ok. Hirsch has a point: cultural differences. For chinese, we're actually taught first to listen, then to speak. As the saying goes for us: "You have two ears and one mouth. So listen twice as much as you speak."

Perhaps therein the image of the enigmatic, nodding chinaman?

yes. it's the culture of me-me-me instant gratification, that has killed the art so. A pity.

Philo! Yes. engaging, deep conversations are always so good; no matter how brief the connection. It is sympatico.

That's kind of what my Grandmother used to tell me, 'Keep your ears and your eyes open and your mouth shut, and you'll learn a lot'.

I really miss having conversations with her. She was my closest friend.

 

[Maverick]

For a few friends though I can... we can talk about everything and nothing. Part of opening up as you said is related to how at ease you are with them. I find that I talk more in situations where I don't feel like I'll be evaluated based on what I said. Perhaps that is why I dislike group conversations... because the things I say can be taken in so many ways that I would rather keep quiet than to risk making a blunder. I ought to correct that.

You know it's funny that you say that because I tend to be similar in group conversations. I don't say much because the discussion tends to stay light (i.e. uninteresting ) and I prefer to keep quiet.

Sometimes it's possible to have a 1-1 conversation inside the group. Others, the whole group remains focused on a common topic and if you start talking to somebody individually, everybody listens and contributes!

You're an Introvert and I'm an Extravert. But we both keep quiet in a group. Do you initiate conversation 1-1 or do you wait for somebody to initiate them with you? Do you tend to see a difference between Extraverts or Introverts in initiating 1-1 conversations with you?

Yes. . . I think your theory doesn't apply to me because I don't like being intimate with anyone other than notta, I don't like showing myself as I am ( and I don't do so in public, for that matter); however, I think I'm a skilled conversationalist that has studied communications, the art of listening, the art of persuasion, propaganda, etc. I did so because I believed early on that being a good conversationalist was probably one of the more important skills that one could have - or needs to have, rather.

Can you explain to me how we could explain that behavior then? To me, I still can't see another explanation than the one I proposed, which in sum stipulates that "People who don't mind showing themselves as they are have more often conversations with others".

The propensity to have conversations with them and the actual skill in having them is not directly linked. However, I would expect that the more you have conversations, the better you become at them. So wouldn't we expect some kind of relationship, albeit mild? If not, how did you manage to become a good conversationalist if you don't like showing yourself as you are?

I'll start up conversations with just about anyone my INTJ best friend doesn't outrightly block. lol (He thinks his Twins are too socially open, but he also confesses to being a "bitter crank").

I also have people just walk up and start telling me their life stories which can be very psychic and engaging. I had a woman at a gas station pump next to me start telling me about the death of her husband and child in a Volkswagen Beetle. (I drove one). It was very sad. She started crying. I would have hugged her if I didn't have transmission fluid and lithium grease on me from work.

The notion of "conversation" is large. In the sense where I implied it in the OP, it is an exchange in which both parties tend to equally contribute. This means that you provide content and stimulate content in the other person. The focus of attention shifts continually from one to the other. Kind of like each person shifting from the interviewer to the interviewee.

Now, at that evening with my friends I had someone open up to me about her story. The thing is, I didn't really consider that as a conversation. Because when someone's talking to you about them, really the best thing you can do is listen, and provide things from time to time. It's not really an exchange, a conversation or a discussion. It's more like an assisted monologue.

What do you think about this?

 

[Haight]

Can you explain to me how we could explain that behavior then? To me, I still can't see another explanation than the one I proposed, which in sum stipulates that "People who don't mind showing themselves as they are have more often conversations with others".

I think your theory applies to people in general. But for me, and other types I suspect, there is no such thing as a casual conversation. Additionally, there is no such thing as "showing" yourself for some people. Which is to say, and as I stated before, your theory doesn't apply to me. And, I suspect it doesn't apply to others for the same reason.

But don't worry. . . all theories have exceptions, and the sample size for this anomaly is quite small, I would imagine.

All and all, this relates back to the "Self-Monitoring" theory, stats, and concepts. Which is why I became involved in both threads.

The propensity to have conversations with them and the actual skill in having them is not directly linked. However, I would expect that the more you have conversations, the better you become at them. So wouldn't we expect some kind of relationship, albeit mild? If not, how did you manage to become a good conversationalist if you don't like showing yourself as you are?

Because as I stated, I studied this "art" just as I study everything else that I think will be important or entertaining to me.

I know this gets stated a lot - so much so that it's almost cliche - but, only one person knows who I am. And to be quite honest, I think super High Self-Monitors lose their true self via the constant mirroring process, very early in life.

. . . I know that's true for me. And so that fact plays out in conversations, amongst numerous other life situations.

 

[RDF]

[...] And to be quite honest, I think super High Self-Monitors lose their true self via the constant mirroring process, very early in life.

I don't know if this is a tangent. But I could say the same thing about a lot of my life--that I've "lost my true self." I'm largely just mirroring what's going on around me. If some new experience comes along, I'll climb on board and check it out, because there's no longer anything inside that tells me ahead of time that a given experience is automatically a good or bad fit for me (other than purely logistic, financial, or legal considerations).

I count that a good thing. I don't want to be the morally, psychologically constipated, bound-up kid I once was.

Conversations are the same way. Light social chatter, deep heavy discussions, whatever. It's all good, I'm on board, it all has its various useful social purposes.

 

[Haight]

Yeah, Jennifer and I went back and forth about this at INTPc awhile back.

Our conversation went into, "What is your true self?" "Can you know your true self?" Can you lose your true self after years of mirroring what others want you to be, or what you want to be?" "Is your true self the person you are when by yourself?" "Doesn't everyone develop, change, progress . . . and become something different over time?" Etc., etc. . .

I think it's interesting.

 

[miss fortune]

very easy to lose yourself if you mirror others all of the time, though it's nice in a sense since then a larger number of people can relate to you, and feel comfortable in your presence- which in turn will give you a lot of different opportunities that may not otherwise exist!

I've always tended to give a person the type of conversation that they seem to be conveying that they want- kind of like a prostitute, only no pay and no sex

*and I'd been thinking about starting a thread on self-definition and such for a while*

 

[nightning]

You know it's funny that you say that because I tend to be similar in group conversations. I don't say much because the discussion tends to stay light (i.e. uninteresting ) and I prefer to keep quiet.

Sometimes it's possible to have a 1-1 conversation inside the group. Others, the whole group remains focused on a common topic and if you start talking to somebody individually, everybody listens and contributes!

Perhaps it's more common for extroverts to initiate internal conversations within a group than for introverts. It's been my experiences that I mostly just listen and on the rare occasion I offer a comment or two. I never redirect the conversation onto something else though. It might have something to do with the connections I make in my mind being so completely off on a tangent that I just don't say anything... then by the time I formulate something interesting, the topic has already moved on... such that my thoughts are even more off topic.

Talking one on one though, I maintain some control over the rate of the conversation. It makes it easier for me to voice those ideas.

You're an Introvert and I'm an Extravert. But we both keep quiet in a group. Do you initiate conversation 1-1 or do you wait for somebody to initiate them with you? Do you tend to see a difference between Extraverts or Introverts in initiating 1-1 conversations with you?

I don't believe there's much difference in the way extroverts and introverts initiate conversations in general. However I do find that the extroverts tend to press on when it comes to keeping a conversation going. The introverts I know (including myself) just let silence reign when it ends.

There are occasions where I attempt to initiate a conversation simply out of politeness. It makes me a hypocrite I suppose... disliking small talk but initiating them myself. Those usually do not last very long. Other times I voice a random thought on my mind. Sometimes the other person finds it interesting and it becomes the topic of a conversation... otherwise no. I do not provide lead up questions to engage a person into conversation.

Now, at that evening with my friends I had someone open up to me about her story. The thing is, I didn't really consider that as a conversation. Because when someone's talking to you about them, really the best thing you can do is listen, and provide things from time to time. It's not really an exchange, a conversation or a discussion. It's more like an assisted monologue.

It's something I do very often... "assisted monologues". The learnt art of listening and subtly encouraging the other person to continue I suppose.

very easy to lose yourself if you mirror others all of the time, though it's nice in a sense since then a larger number of people can relate to you, and feel comfortable in your presence- which in turn will give you a lot of different opportunities that may not otherwise exist!

I've always tended to give a person the type of conversation that they seem to be conveying that they want- kind of like a prostitute, only no pay and no sex

*and I'd been thinking about starting a thread on self-definition and such for a while*

*nods* Mirror too much and you end up being very confuse of who you are. I tend to think of myself as being in modes. If you ask me how do I usually act I can't tell you a single pattern. The good and bads of self monitoring I suppose.

 

[elfinchilde]

Our conversation went into, "What is your true self?" "Can you know your true self?" Can you lose your true self after years of mirroring what others want you to be, or what you want to be?" "Is your true self the person you are when by yourself?" "Doesn't everyone develop, change, progress . . . and become something different over time?" Etc., etc. . .

I think it's interesting.

Just my personal opinion:

Your true self is the one when, alone by yourself, with nothing and no one, what is it that is first in your mind, what do you see of yourself there? The fears, the insecurities, the beauty and strength.

Stripped bare in the silent hours, who are you?

That is a question for each and every soul to answer, and to make peace with. Someone who has done that, would have found himself/herself. And then, mirroring is not a problem at all, because it does not touch the core of who you are: it is simply who you have to be for others, at that point in time. Which facet of the crystal of the soul has to be seen in the light, such that others may relate to you?

Through it all, the sense of self always remains. The completeness of the crystal is always there, even if unseen.

The measure of a man is who he is in his hours of darkness, alone.

You can never lose your true self. You may just have buried it under the years of insecurity and mirroring. Like gold, which always needs polishing. The heart can be tarnished.

Perhaps the saying holds true, that as we age, "we become, more and more, ourselves."

As children, we learn what is acceptable to others. As adults, we learn what is acceptable to ourselves.

That is what growing up, and coming into your own, means.

 

[RDF]

Yeah, Jennifer and I went back and forth about this at INTPc awhile back.

Our conversation went into, "What is your true self?" "Can you know your true self?" Can you lose your true self after years of mirroring what others want you to be, or what you want to be?" "Is your true self the person you are when by yourself?" "Doesn't everyone develop, change, progress . . . and become something different over time?" Etc., etc. . .

I think it's interesting.

That all sounds very "Fi"

I define myself as: "Middle-aged. Male. Married. Executive. Translator. Work downtown. Live in the suburbs. INFP. Political moderate. Atheist. Ex-Marine. Vietnam vet. Ballroom dancer." (Excerpted from http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...-self-identification-w-groups.html#post141558 ) I could go on lots further: Works out and stays relatively healthy, bald, recycles, drives mid-size sedan, basically maintains an upbeat attitude, and so on and so on.

And then having defined myself, I act in a way that's consistent with that self-definition. Consistency earns me credibility in the community and also gives me a "mask" to hide behind or a base from which to go on the offensive in times of conflict or stress. (See my recent post in Jennifer's blog.)

However, I would categorize all those things as the "logistical" considerations I mentioned my previous post in this thread. If any one of those self-definitions were to constrict me too much, it could be dropped or modified. (I've recently learned that I may be pushed into early retirement soon, which is going to mean a big shuffle of the elements of my self-definition listed above.) IOW, I doubt that they constitute my "true self." As mentioned in my previous post here, I don't know that I have (or want) a "true self" anymore.

As for progress... Why should there be progress? Progress towards what? That increasingly gets into the meaning of life, and I'm with Freud: Why should life have a meaning? If I aspire to anything, it's probably toward refining the things in my self-definition: Being a better lover, husband, executive, being upbeat and having fun, etc. But again, I pretty much view those as logistical considerations. They don't provide any guidance as to whether I might prefer deep or light conversations or whether I should be positive or negative toward a random new experience.

Other than that, I'm just dawdling and having fun until I die.

About the only thing I might add in the way of development or progress is that I deliberately and consciously apply a bias in the direction of developing my interactions with the world around me and extraverting myself more. I was pretty introverted for a long time, so increased extraversion represents the direction of novelty, discovery, exploration, etc. To me, that's what will keep things fun and interesting until the big sleep.

 

[swordpath]

 

[alcea rosea]

Thanks for laughs!

 

[prplchknz]

I suck at conversation that and I sometimes get the urge to lick who ever I'm talking to. I have yet to lick a stranger though if you're my friend and have been for awhile probably have been licked. Just like in my highschool circle of friends if we haven't made out drunkenly it's only a matter of time. My mind wanders and most stuff people want to talk about I have no opinion on.

ooh and I have yet to thoroughly read this thread though I've read bits and pieces.

 

[LucrativeSid]

For me, I can fully dive in and give a massive amount of focus and energy to any conversation as long as the other people can match me. If they can't, not only will I become bored, but my mind will start screaming at me that I'm doing something illogical, which to me is basically like cutting myself and then pouring salt in the wounds.

I hate the idea of just automatically putting the other person first, asking questions, listening, and trying to understand. (Unless they need help, but that's different, because you're both entering the conversation with an understanding that it's NOT for mutual benefit.) And I especially HATE it when people do that just because they think that's what they are supposed to do. Think for yourself, stop worrying so much about people's feelings, and quit thinking that one little less-than-perfect interaction with another human being is going to ruin your entire life! We all make mistakes. All you've got to do is make sure your progress outweighs your mistakes. No mistakes = no progress.

I certainly will try to help somebody out if they really need me to just listen while they vent or share a problem with me, but that's different, because we have a purpose that we've both agreed upon, and so it doesn't seem like a waste of time and they'll probably have no trouble staying focused. Otherwise, I don't just naturally put the other person first and spend my time trying to "understand" them. I treat us equally. And if the conversation is not interesting to both of us, and I'm not making a sacrifice to help them, then it's a waste of time and I'll try to shift the conversation towards something that we both enjoy. Or perhaps I'll end it completely.

So, there's only about 4 different things that can happen. They all involve different circumstances, numbers of people, and amounts of dedicated focus, but here they are.

1. I decide to help this person, or take up some other positive goal that doesn't directly benefit me, so it's not about having a good conversation anymore. It's about helping them. And I like helping people, as long as they are genuine and appreciative.

2. I try to keep the conversation on topics that everyone enjoys and benefits from, getting as deep and as elaborate as I can. This involves a lot of jumping around and I'm full of ideas so I can cover a lot of ground quickly. Once I find a topic I can milk, I'm all into it.

3. If the other people are too shy or boring, I'll try to keep things going by myself by talking only about what I'm interested in and hoping that the others will be amused somehow. I'll ask questions, but not about themselves, about what they think about what I'm saying, and if I'm lucky, their responses will be enough to give me a new thought, learn something new, or to be inspired. I love conducting spontaneous research by probing people's minds and asking them questions they they probably have never heard before. (They usually enjoy it, in some twisted way or another, but if they don't, I go on to number 4.)

4. I quit.

Not trying to put everyone else first doesn't seem selfish to me. The way I see a good conversation progressing involves both people putting a bit out there, and both people responding in a way that grows what's already in the pot. And if the pot is appealing, they both continue, and so the pot eventually grows into something amazing. I'm not going to just let somebody make a whole pot by themselves and then blindly jump right in it. And I wouldn't expect somebody to listen to me intently if they were not interested. That's actually more of an insult than anything else.

I'm not selfish or greedy. I'm just REAL with people. I think highly of myself. That doesn't mean that I think I'm better than anyone else. I'm just not afraid to admit it to myself when somebody is a waste of my time. And I'm sure I'm a waste of their time, too. It's nothing personal. I'll still be polite and I'll still help in some way if they ask. It’s not like I hate this person and think I’m way above them. I respect everybody until they do something to lose it.

And I actually think that it’s ridiculous to be in a conversation or a relationship that is not mutually beneficial, so by refusing to do that, I’m standing up for what I believe in, while still doing the greater good for everyone involved. At best, they will learn to do the same and it will enhance their lives. It's easy to find a balance between being a selfish asshole and a pushover. If you find that balance, not only will your own life be better, but mine will, and so will everyone's that you know. It seems like a worthy cause to me.

There's only about 3 people that I can count on for good conversations and that seems to be enough most of the time, because there's always reading books, writing articles, posting in forums, ect...