Back

Brooks suggests that good conversationalists take advantage of both of-the-moment opportunities as well as topic forethought – thinking ahead about where the conversation can go to keep it interesting.

She recommends keeping personal details top of mind, which can be referred to later. Asking about a person’s life and interests helps them open up and be vulnerable, and that enables great conversation. (It’s something you can do the next time you see them – to ask about something you remember them saying they were interested in.) “They are inherently personal and validating—they make people feel heard because they show that they’ve actually been heard.”

“And getting personal makes us vulnerable. It opens us, potentially, to judgment and exploitation. But it also opens us to trust, enjoyment, and love—to feeling truly understood, respected, and valued. Though we may trip or stumble every once in a while, we shouldn’t let our fears of making our partners uncomfortable be a roadblock that prevents us from truly connecting.”

She also recommends switching topics frequently.

“My fellow researchers and I were surprised to learn that the folks who switched topics frequently—and achieved broader subject matter as a result—didn’t do so at the expense of depth, a trade-off some of us worry about. Our research shows that those who manage topics deftly dig deep, find treasure quickly, and switch to new topics seamlessly, without painfully awkward gaps or delays.”

A polite conversationalist does not “boomerask” – which means a person asking a question of another simply as an excuse to provide information about themselves.

“The boomerasker doesn’t listen enough to their partner, or insufficiently acknowledges their partner’s disclosure, or both. They take everything a question is supposed to do, and they achieve the opposite. Boomeraskers aren’t always mean-spirited, but it’s the impact, not the intention, that ultimately matters. Even if the initial question was born of sincere curiosity, the answerer, whose answer is swiftly ignored, sees the sequence as uncurious and uncaring—the boomerasker seems insincere.”

A good conversationalist also does not ask “gotcha” questions that may ask the responder to perform, seem to question their honesty or competence, or present an opportunity to prove them wrong. These are manipulative and not conducive to good conversation.

In the section on levity, Brooks encourages people to inject humor or lightness into the conversation, even if it seems a risk. She says:

“Levity does more than just buoy us and unlock our best selves. It reflects, reveals, and reinforces authentic feelings of psychological safety and trust. Psychological safety—the belief that you won’t be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, question, concerns, or mistakes in a group—is rooted in interpersonal enjoyment.”

But people still feel hesitant to try humor, feeling like it will flop, seem disrespectful, or come across as unserious. But actually, people are forgiving with humor:
“. . . people’s anxiety about conversational humor is overblown. My research with behavioral scientists Maurice Schweitzer and Brad Bitterly found that people overestimate how often and egregiously humor goes poorly—we conjure comedians who got canceled and poignant conversational moments in which humor went awry. And people underestimate how often attempts at humor go well—leavening the mood, drawing people closer, boosting perceptions of competence and status.”

The trick is to use “affiliative humor,” which brings people together, rather than “aggressive humor,” which punches down.

I, of course, love the section that discusses kindness in conversation.

“ . . . even if kindness is an ideal that we can’t achieve all the time, reaching for it relentlessly is the best chance we have of being the people we mean to be. Trying to prioritize others requires a continuous (and sincere) devotion to our partners. The kind conversationalist’s job is to figure out what their partner needs. And whatever they need—encouragement, hard feedback, new ideas, a quick laugh, a sounding board, challenging questions, a break—kindness means helping them get it.”

To be kind, you offer respect, make people feel seen and heard (be present), and make them feel worthy of care. It also means stepping in if, for example, in the instance of a group conversation, someone is being unkind or disrespectful and refusing to repeat the behavior.

One aspect of kindness and good conversation is active/responsive listening – showing that you’re listening, reflecting back, staying curious, asking questions, being present. Great conversationalists “constantly try to perceive, interpret, question, repair, and build on each other’s ideas.”

I like that the author brings up the idea of the dual monologue (a “duologue”), where two people are having conversations that don’t connect, cross over, or respond to each other. Each person is holding their own monologue, even though it may appear that they are in conversation. It’s a phenomenon I’ve noticed, perhaps most specifically in the US. Zero questions asks, people one-upping each other, “connection” in the least connective way possible.

Responsive listening can break the cycle of a duologue. However, in my experience, if the other person doesn’t understand another way is possible, the person trying to step outside of the duologue will do all of the heavy lifting – it’s up to the individual whether they want to continue to prop their monologuing partner up or find a gentle way to extricate themselves and find someone who is more interested in an even exchange.

I also LOVE that Brooks brings up the idea of interrupting as a responsive listening tactic. I’ve had too many people in my life that were taught and never evolved from the idea that interruption is “rude” (which honestly enables monologuing even further).

“On-topic interruptions suggest that the listener is so engaged and excited about where the conversation is headed that they couldn’t wait until the end of the speaker’s comment.”

“On-topic interruptions are a signal of good, bubbling discourse, engaged listening, and often a sense of closeness between the speakers. Some speakers may still find them a bit annoying if they’re unable to finish their thought or if the listener has incorrectly anticipated what they were going to say. But on average, on-topic interruptions are a different (better) species than their hurtful and rude cousin, the off-topic interruption.”

One aspect not considered consciously enough is status, which can affect the flow of the conversation.

“Gaining more awareness of when we have high or low status can help us make better conversational choices from one moment to the next. In the same way that we can think a little more consciously about our conversational goals, we can also think more consciously about the context—namely, the other people in the group, and the changing status hierarchy among them.”

“High-status conversationalists tend to take up more airtime and blurt their thoughts aloud with little hesitation, while lower-status members stew in silence. This fuels a vicious cycle: those who speak more are seen as having higher status, which grants them more leeway to speak, even on topics on which they don’t have value to add.”

“Perhaps the most important thing high-status group members can do is to simply get out of the way. Yes: Stop talking! Give others more space to talk! This may seem obvious, but it is trickier than it first appears. It’s hard for you to not dominate a group conversation when you’re used to leading or have expertise, and others seem quiet or lost. But by staying out, you can invite others to speak. Giving others space is an incredible gift, although it can sometimes take relentless effort to achieve.”

High-status individuals can create trust and safety by being vulnerable, revealing their flaws/failures, and injecting levity into the conversation. They also make sure that people know they can speak freely without repercussions and that ideas and thoughts are welcome, leveling the plane for people.

The last part of the book Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves discusses conversations between people who may not agree. Other books have tackled this subject at length, so I won’t rehash the ideas here.

While some of the ideas in the book aren’t new (to me), I think they could be applied to collective benefit, both in person and on social media. Less one-upmanship, fewer “gotcha” questions, less correction, less ego. More question asking, more connection, and more kindness, most of all.

end

@Furthering Your writing on key points discussed in this book, "Talk" by Allison Wood Brooks, has me intrigued & wanting to read/listen to this book. I have gotten increasingly frustrated when connecting w/ others, because interactions can be dull or extractive. (I live in the US.) Understanding the dynamics of conversation in this easy, digestible way, means it will be easier for me to reflect & employ what I want to see/experience. Thank you for sharing your thoughts/notes!
#bookstodon