I'm a psychologist who studies conversation, and I think this is all good advice! Extending the invitation is especially important––it boggles my mind how often those invitations seem to go un-extended in conversations, and how people blow past what's most interesting and important.
One thing I disagree with, though, is that most conversations between new acquaintances are bad. We find pretty consistently that people *expect* them to be bad, but once they have them, people report them being pretty great. For instance, in one of my studies, people talking to a stranger in the lab gave their conversations over a 5 out of 7, on average: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2011809118.
Anyway, talking to other people is probably the single most important thing that people do, and it deserves some deep thinking. I think you're especially right that conversations are so contextual that they can't be abstracted––at least, not yet!
Maybe my idea that most conversations are bad is unduly influenced by my last few parties in the bay area or something, or my standards have risen over time
That may be! Our memories for these things tend to be dominated by outliers. My PhD advisor once did a study where he asked people to remember a time they missed a train, and they seem to be remembering the *worst* time they missed a train. Something similar may happen with conversations.
As someone who grew up in the Jehovah's Witnesses, I was groomed to build rapport quickly with people I encountered when going door to door evangelizing. I really like your doorknob analogy in your above link, because asking open-ended questions is, in my opinion, one of the keys to good conversation, but also follow-up questions to continue a thread. Still, I think you are a too hard hard on the "givers" there and not hard enough on the "takers" because most people are terrible at being givers; they ask close-ended questions or none at all, and its then up to a good giver to keep things going.
I've been on so many first dates where the woman suddenly observes "Oh my! I'm talking about myself this whole time!" but then sits there in awkward silence instead of doing what I've been doing which is to then proactively ask me an open-ended question. But she doesn't, and so after several beats I pick up the thread again and she happily returns to her role as a passive taker. (Men though have the monopoly on being "takers" generally.)
The second key to being a good giver is a lot of non-verbal reinforcement when the active taker is talking. Reacting to what they are saying with facial or short verbal cues reassures the taker that what they are saying is interesting to you and so builds emotional rapport. Which is really the point of small talk - not the exchanging of information but rather the building of emotional connection, as Sasha alludes to in the above essay.
The #1 thing that changed my small talk game was getting a dog. I'm generally very shy, but with a dog you invariably end up talking to other dog parents, and these conversations feel easy because the dogs provide an obvious thing to talk about--you can chat about their breed, age, energy level, favorite toys and treats, etc. Now that I've had all these positive interactions with strangers, I'm less nervous about small talk in general.
Silence is brilliant. Andrew Callaghan, when he interviewed people for his gonzo Channel 5 program, would always wait a few seconds after his subject gave their answer. To break the silence, perhaps in a sort of panic, they'd follow up with a sort of second answer. This would always be more interesting than the first. Then the conversation really got going.
porous boundaries - let the other person lead but feel how my boundaries change during the convo and
go from that
try not to hyperfocus during the conversation because it takes me out of it. it's natural for me to get completely absorbed when i am talking but this isn't what i want with new people. so, i wear my hyperfocus monitor, and relax my way out of it, if i can, if i find myself doing it.
This is the best post I've ever read on having good conversations. As an extreme extrovert, I've been practicing this my whole life and never read someone who put what I discovered into words before.
Great essay on how to have better conversations, loved it! I'm just thinking about how this translates to online conversations.
Many of these are directly applicable, but body language, cues, and intonation would be missing, so I find myself quite tense and second-guessing the appropriate cadence to reply at, whether I'm giving the other person too much "work" by typing long messages, etc. especially if the chat isn't happening real-time. Any thoughts?
I have a suspicion I am autistic for many reasons, but when people bring up this stuff about matching someone's energy and even speech cadences, I feel like I don't have the bandwidth to both participate in the conversation and do that. Even talking while looking someone in the eye is something I have to consciously do (I feel like I need to look away to actually think).
I'm not sure I can even do that matching stuff if I set out consciously to do it. I would describe most people's energy level as "neutral", I'm not sure what else is there.
One idea that I’ve found very helpful for me is to approach conversations with a playful and experimental stance (appropriate to the situation). As opposed to you know treating every conversation as if you’re loading nuclear fuel into a reactor or something.
Also, for people with significant social anxiety, check out the Ovrcome app that uses VR exposure to make things easier.
Ben Kuhn's post contains a suggestion that's very similar to a piece of advice I recently got from a friend. My friend is great at being engaged when interacting with people, and I recently interviewed him in order to learn what he's doing.
His suggestion is to try to model the other person - things that are salient to them, their frames of reference, what's important to them and why, etc.
I tried it out, and found it very helpful. It drives me to engage in the conversation, seeking patterns that tell me more about how the other person functions. It also helps me remember people vividly - it's easier to remember a coherent system with an organizing principle, rather than a bunch of facts.
Right now I'm playing with a very direct approach, telling people that I'm trying out a new method of getting to know people quickly, and asking them if they are open to experiment. If they are, I ask them "what's important to you?". Most people absolutely adore this question! It opens up for fertile avenues of further exploration - figuring out the backstory, where things are going, etc.
This approach functions well in 1-on-1 conversations, but I'm hesitant to try it out in group settings, due to the skew in group focus combined with an unwillingness to put someone on the spot in front of a crowd. So I'm exploring less direct approaches, trying to find one for group settings.
Love this all, this especially stuck out to me as it's a disagreement I've had with so many —
"Some people get frustrated with small talk because the words themselves are not enlightening. But they’re focusing on the wrong thing..."
I ADORE small talk. Not cause I actually care-care that you live in Evanston, went to Boston College, or are a biracial only child raised by a single mom, but because we're opening doors to connection and conversation both in sharing facts and persona.
Thank you for this musing Sasha, so enlightening! Evernote'ing to share in my Adulting Kit and workplace workshops and to my general community at large.
Hi Sasha, I really enjoyed reading this. So much of what you said resonated with me. Human connection is also one of my favorite things. To me, it makes life so much richer and exciting. I'm also genuinely curious about a lot of things and other people. I've been experimenting how to better connect with people and I've had decent success. However, I'm always looking to improve on this skill, so I'm curious, do you have any resources you might suggest looking into (books, blogs, articles, courses, etc...) that might help to develop better conversation skills, specifically developing connection? Thanks!
I've also noticed the importance of this skill, quite recently. And the less anxious I am in a situation, the easier is is to be interested in the other person rather than inwardly focused. But that reduction in anxiety seems to only be possible through repeat exposure, or carefully organised non-threatening social situations... which is unfortunate for people with social anxiety like myself.
Once I can find that curiousity in the other person, though, it flows so much more smoothly, and becomes an enjoyable experience rather than something I end up analysing for days after the fact. It's been quite strange and yet hope-inducing recently, because I've noticed that I'm finally becoming invested in understanding what this person is all about, rather than wondering if the facial expressions I'm making are correct for the situation.
I'm a psychologist who studies conversation, and I think this is all good advice! Extending the invitation is especially important––it boggles my mind how often those invitations seem to go un-extended in conversations, and how people blow past what's most interesting and important.
One thing I disagree with, though, is that most conversations between new acquaintances are bad. We find pretty consistently that people *expect* them to be bad, but once they have them, people report them being pretty great. For instance, in one of my studies, people talking to a stranger in the lab gave their conversations over a 5 out of 7, on average: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2011809118.
In another study, some of our friends found that people expected conversations with strangers to be worse than they actually were (and they were pretty good): https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0037323
This is part of an emerging literature where we're finding that people underestimate just how well their conversations go. For instance, people tend to think that the people they meet like them less than they actually do: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797618783714?casa_token=nMA1QY9X2D8AAAAA:BpJyUAPVQ-fOXijtaqrLJMM9B4532cjdWeQZrOd_8yOteV7Z1O8Ytsmbcaj3auVs_PWByhLsX97gkA
This is true also when people meet each other in groups––they think they're the least-liked of the group, on average: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959782030399X?casa_token=pEaqKi8bMN4AAAAA:lKP54mncTCqXEGp5aoFVxx701dobXcewa0287OwCD9hyMkCAyrfLvhFwouhU0MJVx1yvwlik4bY
And it's even true for kids: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797620980754?casa_token=N7Slf_AI4ukAAAAA:eXCpTMLdXHmP69lJr3pm06fm1XNdoVT9YrUUcjIjcvN76N1j4iy2EDBGuDGYoI0HQtg5eRlygYYemA
Coming out of all this, I've also got some ideas about what makes a good conversation: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/good-conversations-have-lots-of-doorknobs
Anyway, talking to other people is probably the single most important thing that people do, and it deserves some deep thinking. I think you're especially right that conversations are so contextual that they can't be abstracted––at least, not yet!
This literature is fascinating
Maybe my idea that most conversations are bad is unduly influenced by my last few parties in the bay area or something, or my standards have risen over time
That may be! Our memories for these things tend to be dominated by outliers. My PhD advisor once did a study where he asked people to remember a time they missed a train, and they seem to be remembering the *worst* time they missed a train. Something similar may happen with conversations.
Some more papers:
Why people tend to avoid conversations with strangers, even though they're good: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6293e4b0d1d6aa7a2e72/t/60172eae31367d7eb9c3cc97/1612132020616/Why+do+people+avoid+talking+to+strangers+A+mini+meta+analysis+of+predicted+fears+and+actual+experiences+talking+to+a+stranger.pdf
People think having great, unique experiences will make them popular in conversation, but instead they get left out when everybody else talks about their worse, shared experiences: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797614551372?casa_token=FlsiRtilZg0AAAAA%3AwSUb5yl0jT33L-sk2VAborv1nFWxKkoNVGhlWKfwoFQBPsoEm10a32TSYWEVR80c4f3P3o63wsFKhQ
Speakers prefer to tell listeners things listeners haven't heard before, but listeners prefer to hear about stuff they've already heard: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797616685870?casa_token=I7ID5PuULGcAAAAA:ov9whPJ3ko-BYzDmgc8KW-LssA_mxPK8__5Vd6iNzs8Z61tcZHG-A1Chyx75RqMr9NYqBx6xJBRwNA
When you get people to talk to strangers more, they're happier a week later: https://psyarxiv.com/29q8j/
As someone who grew up in the Jehovah's Witnesses, I was groomed to build rapport quickly with people I encountered when going door to door evangelizing. I really like your doorknob analogy in your above link, because asking open-ended questions is, in my opinion, one of the keys to good conversation, but also follow-up questions to continue a thread. Still, I think you are a too hard hard on the "givers" there and not hard enough on the "takers" because most people are terrible at being givers; they ask close-ended questions or none at all, and its then up to a good giver to keep things going.
I've been on so many first dates where the woman suddenly observes "Oh my! I'm talking about myself this whole time!" but then sits there in awkward silence instead of doing what I've been doing which is to then proactively ask me an open-ended question. But she doesn't, and so after several beats I pick up the thread again and she happily returns to her role as a passive taker. (Men though have the monopoly on being "takers" generally.)
The second key to being a good giver is a lot of non-verbal reinforcement when the active taker is talking. Reacting to what they are saying with facial or short verbal cues reassures the taker that what they are saying is interesting to you and so builds emotional rapport. Which is really the point of small talk - not the exchanging of information but rather the building of emotional connection, as Sasha alludes to in the above essay.
This is good/weird/specific enough that I can see it being used by some advanced AI robot to mimic human interaction.
The #1 thing that changed my small talk game was getting a dog. I'm generally very shy, but with a dog you invariably end up talking to other dog parents, and these conversations feel easy because the dogs provide an obvious thing to talk about--you can chat about their breed, age, energy level, favorite toys and treats, etc. Now that I've had all these positive interactions with strangers, I'm less nervous about small talk in general.
I noticed the same thing happening when I started having kids.
Silence is brilliant. Andrew Callaghan, when he interviewed people for his gonzo Channel 5 program, would always wait a few seconds after his subject gave their answer. To break the silence, perhaps in a sort of panic, they'd follow up with a sort of second answer. This would always be more interesting than the first. Then the conversation really got going.
my new goal in conversation
an intention to become relaxed and open
porous boundaries - let the other person lead but feel how my boundaries change during the convo and
go from that
try not to hyperfocus during the conversation because it takes me out of it. it's natural for me to get completely absorbed when i am talking but this isn't what i want with new people. so, i wear my hyperfocus monitor, and relax my way out of it, if i can, if i find myself doing it.
Love your stuff, Sasha. The intentionality and lucidness with which you approach life is inspiring. Please keep writing :)
This is the best post I've ever read on having good conversations. As an extreme extrovert, I've been practicing this my whole life and never read someone who put what I discovered into words before.
Great essay on how to have better conversations, loved it! I'm just thinking about how this translates to online conversations.
Many of these are directly applicable, but body language, cues, and intonation would be missing, so I find myself quite tense and second-guessing the appropriate cadence to reply at, whether I'm giving the other person too much "work" by typing long messages, etc. especially if the chat isn't happening real-time. Any thoughts?
I have a suspicion I am autistic for many reasons, but when people bring up this stuff about matching someone's energy and even speech cadences, I feel like I don't have the bandwidth to both participate in the conversation and do that. Even talking while looking someone in the eye is something I have to consciously do (I feel like I need to look away to actually think).
I'm not sure I can even do that matching stuff if I set out consciously to do it. I would describe most people's energy level as "neutral", I'm not sure what else is there.
Wonderful post chockablock with excellent advice.
One idea that I’ve found very helpful for me is to approach conversations with a playful and experimental stance (appropriate to the situation). As opposed to you know treating every conversation as if you’re loading nuclear fuel into a reactor or something.
Also, for people with significant social anxiety, check out the Ovrcome app that uses VR exposure to make things easier.
Ben Kuhn's post contains a suggestion that's very similar to a piece of advice I recently got from a friend. My friend is great at being engaged when interacting with people, and I recently interviewed him in order to learn what he's doing.
His suggestion is to try to model the other person - things that are salient to them, their frames of reference, what's important to them and why, etc.
I tried it out, and found it very helpful. It drives me to engage in the conversation, seeking patterns that tell me more about how the other person functions. It also helps me remember people vividly - it's easier to remember a coherent system with an organizing principle, rather than a bunch of facts.
Right now I'm playing with a very direct approach, telling people that I'm trying out a new method of getting to know people quickly, and asking them if they are open to experiment. If they are, I ask them "what's important to you?". Most people absolutely adore this question! It opens up for fertile avenues of further exploration - figuring out the backstory, where things are going, etc.
This approach functions well in 1-on-1 conversations, but I'm hesitant to try it out in group settings, due to the skew in group focus combined with an unwillingness to put someone on the spot in front of a crowd. So I'm exploring less direct approaches, trying to find one for group settings.
Really enjoyed this post, keep it up =)
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Love this all, this especially stuck out to me as it's a disagreement I've had with so many —
"Some people get frustrated with small talk because the words themselves are not enlightening. But they’re focusing on the wrong thing..."
I ADORE small talk. Not cause I actually care-care that you live in Evanston, went to Boston College, or are a biracial only child raised by a single mom, but because we're opening doors to connection and conversation both in sharing facts and persona.
Thank you for this musing Sasha, so enlightening! Evernote'ing to share in my Adulting Kit and workplace workshops and to my general community at large.
Hi Sasha, I really enjoyed reading this. So much of what you said resonated with me. Human connection is also one of my favorite things. To me, it makes life so much richer and exciting. I'm also genuinely curious about a lot of things and other people. I've been experimenting how to better connect with people and I've had decent success. However, I'm always looking to improve on this skill, so I'm curious, do you have any resources you might suggest looking into (books, blogs, articles, courses, etc...) that might help to develop better conversation skills, specifically developing connection? Thanks!
This is really good.
I've also noticed the importance of this skill, quite recently. And the less anxious I am in a situation, the easier is is to be interested in the other person rather than inwardly focused. But that reduction in anxiety seems to only be possible through repeat exposure, or carefully organised non-threatening social situations... which is unfortunate for people with social anxiety like myself.
Once I can find that curiousity in the other person, though, it flows so much more smoothly, and becomes an enjoyable experience rather than something I end up analysing for days after the fact. It's been quite strange and yet hope-inducing recently, because I've noticed that I'm finally becoming invested in understanding what this person is all about, rather than wondering if the facial expressions I'm making are correct for the situation.