> It's like normalising conversations about sport or TV. "But I'm not interested in sport or TV" becomes an unacceptable view because "most people" are. So you should definitely pretend to find the latest reality show as interesting as the most recent ball game because otherwise you "have no social skills."
I mean, it depends. I'm considered pretty socially adept (I can be an asshole, but usually it's due to other character flaws like selfishness and impatience rather than poor social skills), and I don't like sports or most TV shows. (I watched fewer than 5 TV shows or movies in 2021).
In my experience, with small talk it's about finding a common connection. People bring up stupid things (like the weather, TV, sportsballs) in order to find a point of connection. If you don't like the things the other person likes (sports/TV), then just saying "I don't like X" without offering a follow up shuts down the conversation. Socially it signals "I do not want to connect, leave me be."
I like to follow up with "Oh, X isn't my thing, but it sounds pretty cool, especially the INSERT THING THEY MENTIONED. That's kind of like Y (thing I like); have you seen that? Are they similar?" You can affirm people's interest in things without faking an interest yourself.
That being said, most chaos apes are not consciously aware of why they're doing things.
Where it gets difficult is that it really SHOULDN'T be one way, but when the majority of your interests are things that most people don't understand, they can't ask you questions and use your interests to connect to you like they would for most people.
The rhythm of a conversation doesn't dictate that you have the same interests, but it does dictate that you ask each other questions to find common ground. If one person doesn't understand the other well enough to ask the right questions, things get lopsided, which is where I think a lot of geeks struggle, especially as the experience differential compounds over time as we have fewer proper give-and-take conversations with peers growing up.
I think it's valuable to at least have some extremely basic knowledge of these topics, to allow you to barely follow along when someone brings up sportsball or TV shows. You don't need to know specifically whether or not the Eagles played basketball with the Phillies last night or what the score was, but you should know at the very least that the sentence doesn't make sense. Don't fight these topics, don't constantly try to change the conversation into something [likely only] you are interested in. And definitely don't disparage the topic, convey your irritation, or just sit there looking bored. Just kind of be a neutral observer when you're not into the topic. I used to be that insufferable "Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television"[1]. It's cringe and it's not going to get you anywhere socially.
Agree with not disparaging, but disagree with having to know about the topics. Then again, that may be a sex based difference (assuming you're male): Women might be allowed more leeway about not knowing things, particularly when it comes to things like sports.
Admitting you don't know is fine, as long as you don't insinuate that you don't know because their interests are beneath you. There are lots of things I don't know, it doesn't mean those things are unimportant.
Yes, the problem with sports (in some circumstances) is that people will think less of you for not knowing some ground-level information. On most topics (the news, TV), people are more excited to explain the basics to you, at least in my experience. If people have to explain the rules of basketball to you, they're likely to think you're an idiot.
I hate sports, and don’t really follow them. I do research standings and stuff before going out because I want to know if someone brings it up, if they’re an “underdog” kinda person or just loyal to a team. Most sports people will quickly discover that I only have surface-level knowledge though, but I ask questions and people seem super happy to tell me how things work. In fact, most of what I know about pro-sports comes from what people tell me at parties.
I mean, it depends. I'm considered pretty socially adept (I can be an asshole, but usually it's due to other character flaws like selfishness and impatience rather than poor social skills), and I don't like sports or most TV shows. (I watched fewer than 5 TV shows or movies in 2021).
In my experience, with small talk it's about finding a common connection. People bring up stupid things (like the weather, TV, sportsballs) in order to find a point of connection. If you don't like the things the other person likes (sports/TV), then just saying "I don't like X" without offering a follow up shuts down the conversation. Socially it signals "I do not want to connect, leave me be."
I like to follow up with "Oh, X isn't my thing, but it sounds pretty cool, especially the INSERT THING THEY MENTIONED. That's kind of like Y (thing I like); have you seen that? Are they similar?" You can affirm people's interest in things without faking an interest yourself.
That being said, most chaos apes are not consciously aware of why they're doing things.
Where it gets difficult is that it really SHOULDN'T be one way, but when the majority of your interests are things that most people don't understand, they can't ask you questions and use your interests to connect to you like they would for most people.
The rhythm of a conversation doesn't dictate that you have the same interests, but it does dictate that you ask each other questions to find common ground. If one person doesn't understand the other well enough to ask the right questions, things get lopsided, which is where I think a lot of geeks struggle, especially as the experience differential compounds over time as we have fewer proper give-and-take conversations with peers growing up.