Thoughts On Interestingness and Conversation
I always have this small but sturdy notion within me that, at core, I'm a boring person. That fundamentally I am boring and it's a true fact about me; that this can only be masked and diversions can be created, but eventually I will be found out. This state of mind is certainly not helped when girls who seemed into you suddenly and abruptly are not anymore. But that's beside the point.
Admittedly, I face a bit of difficulty. Whenever I can't engage in conversation for long or entertain an interlocutor, I imagine this as my boringness seeping out. My faltering in conversation in turn reinforces my belief that in reality I'm a boring man.
It's occurred to me just now, however, that I might have it backwards. What if it's my belief that I'm boring that causes my failings in conversation, as opposed to my failings in conversation evidencing the fact that I'm boring? This might be untrue or a stretch, but either way, it might be helpful to conceive of it this way. I've been reassured by friends that they don't think I'm boring, so perhaps it is just faulty thinking.
But how do I combat this deeply entrenched belief, though? Perhaps it will take a bit of conceptual trickery. For example, I might think of interest as ultimately subjective. Anything that is interesting is interesting only because I find it interesting. If I'm both judge and juror of what is interesting, then how can I be uninteresting?
I don't know whether these are just word games or whether I'm onto something. But let's roll with it. If that which is interesting is not objective, then there are only intersubjective, overlapping areas where interests meet, but never any real reason to call anybody, myself included, "uninteresting".
Still, it leaves you wondering: why does it seem like some people are just better at upholding conversation, seem more charming, more (in a word) 'interesting'?
I guess the answer here is that they are not inherently more interesting, but that they have come to understand and master the exoskeleton of conversation. They know its form and its etiquette; it's not that in substance they are richer. They are just more skilled with the framework.
It seems, then, it falls upon me to find out how to familiarise myself with the form of conversation and general social interaction. Something, admittedly sad as it may be, I still find myself working on at 19-going-on-20.
Is this too long to go on and try to iron out some of what perhaps makes a good conversationalist? I don't want future me to get exhausted and stop reading. Oh well, I guess it's good for present-me (the only me, incidentally).
Let's start basically. A conversation is a dialogue: two or more people take turns to speak. It's also supposed to be an interaction, not just two monologues side-by-side, so I guess the form should be something akin to Q&A. However, too strictly, that's an interview, not a conversation, so let's refine it from one side:
You, as one element of a conversation, should aim to ask questions that will elicit answers. Then what you ought to do is comment on that answer before asking either a question of elaboration (delving deeper into your topic) or a topic-shifting question. Imagine conversations like long threads being woven; only use those topic-shifting questions when the thread is wearing thin.
Bear in mind, however, that your interlocutor may be quite the conversationalist themselves and ask you questions back. This part stumps me a lot and I guess is where the problem of "being interesting" comes in. Here we have to recall that there is no objective standard of interestingness, so you have only one real option: be honest in your responses and see whether your ideas of interesting overlap with your interlocutor's. Sometimes they might, and sometimes they might not. Again, 'form' can be useful here, even despite substance, so use descriptive and interesting language to describe mundane and uninteresting things. Moreover, be more conceptual than literal, except where it's absolutely necessary to be literal. For example:
"Hey, man, how were your holidays?"
"Oh, they were quite dull. I spent most of it lounging around the house, trying to pump myself up into a mindset of productivity." Stop here and return the question if you're not very close with them. You can get more personal if you are, though: "I've discovered that there's a slow continental rift developing between me and my friends back home, though, which is sad, but I guess that's life. How about you, how was Christmas down in ..."
So, quick and final recap: There is no such thing as being objectively interesting; you can only help the form of your interactions. A conversation should go (where 1 is the first interlocutor and 2 is the second): Question(1)-Answer(2)-Comment(1)-Question of Elaboration(1) or Topic-Shifting Question(1). And sometimes: Question(1)-Answer(2)-Question(2)-Answer(1) [involving expressive language, conceptual]-etc. The idea, ultimately, is to keep a rally going, hence the purpose of elaborating or topic-shifting.
This has been very theoretic so I run the risk of forgetting this all, but I'll try not to. Onwards I go!
Admittedly, I face a bit of difficulty. Whenever I can't engage in conversation for long or entertain an interlocutor, I imagine this as my boringness seeping out. My faltering in conversation in turn reinforces my belief that in reality I'm a boring man.
It's occurred to me just now, however, that I might have it backwards. What if it's my belief that I'm boring that causes my failings in conversation, as opposed to my failings in conversation evidencing the fact that I'm boring? This might be untrue or a stretch, but either way, it might be helpful to conceive of it this way. I've been reassured by friends that they don't think I'm boring, so perhaps it is just faulty thinking.
But how do I combat this deeply entrenched belief, though? Perhaps it will take a bit of conceptual trickery. For example, I might think of interest as ultimately subjective. Anything that is interesting is interesting only because I find it interesting. If I'm both judge and juror of what is interesting, then how can I be uninteresting?
I don't know whether these are just word games or whether I'm onto something. But let's roll with it. If that which is interesting is not objective, then there are only intersubjective, overlapping areas where interests meet, but never any real reason to call anybody, myself included, "uninteresting".
Still, it leaves you wondering: why does it seem like some people are just better at upholding conversation, seem more charming, more (in a word) 'interesting'?
I guess the answer here is that they are not inherently more interesting, but that they have come to understand and master the exoskeleton of conversation. They know its form and its etiquette; it's not that in substance they are richer. They are just more skilled with the framework.
It seems, then, it falls upon me to find out how to familiarise myself with the form of conversation and general social interaction. Something, admittedly sad as it may be, I still find myself working on at 19-going-on-20.
Is this too long to go on and try to iron out some of what perhaps makes a good conversationalist? I don't want future me to get exhausted and stop reading. Oh well, I guess it's good for present-me (the only me, incidentally).
Let's start basically. A conversation is a dialogue: two or more people take turns to speak. It's also supposed to be an interaction, not just two monologues side-by-side, so I guess the form should be something akin to Q&A. However, too strictly, that's an interview, not a conversation, so let's refine it from one side:
You, as one element of a conversation, should aim to ask questions that will elicit answers. Then what you ought to do is comment on that answer before asking either a question of elaboration (delving deeper into your topic) or a topic-shifting question. Imagine conversations like long threads being woven; only use those topic-shifting questions when the thread is wearing thin.
Bear in mind, however, that your interlocutor may be quite the conversationalist themselves and ask you questions back. This part stumps me a lot and I guess is where the problem of "being interesting" comes in. Here we have to recall that there is no objective standard of interestingness, so you have only one real option: be honest in your responses and see whether your ideas of interesting overlap with your interlocutor's. Sometimes they might, and sometimes they might not. Again, 'form' can be useful here, even despite substance, so use descriptive and interesting language to describe mundane and uninteresting things. Moreover, be more conceptual than literal, except where it's absolutely necessary to be literal. For example:
"Hey, man, how were your holidays?"
"Oh, they were quite dull. I spent most of it lounging around the house, trying to pump myself up into a mindset of productivity." Stop here and return the question if you're not very close with them. You can get more personal if you are, though: "I've discovered that there's a slow continental rift developing between me and my friends back home, though, which is sad, but I guess that's life. How about you, how was Christmas down in ..."
So, quick and final recap: There is no such thing as being objectively interesting; you can only help the form of your interactions. A conversation should go (where 1 is the first interlocutor and 2 is the second): Question(1)-Answer(2)-Comment(1)-Question of Elaboration(1) or Topic-Shifting Question(1). And sometimes: Question(1)-Answer(2)-Question(2)-Answer(1) [involving expressive language, conceptual]-etc. The idea, ultimately, is to keep a rally going, hence the purpose of elaborating or topic-shifting.
This has been very theoretic so I run the risk of forgetting this all, but I'll try not to. Onwards I go!
Comments
Post a Comment