It's interesting that the great limiter of conversation may be the fear of being objectively labeled "uninteresting" by your counterpart in the conversation.
There was an aid in a lab at my school who would routinely berate students when he was programming or playing a video game on his laptop:
Student: "Is that C#?"
Aid: "What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you ask questions you already know the answer to?"
The aid was rejecting a universal ice-breaker because, in his mind, it was beneath him.
I would imagine he didn't have very diverse conversations.
I've long since become accustomed to the fact that people around me don't share the same interests, and I don't share theirs. There's basically no reason to try to have a conversation with people.
If you only interact with people who mirror yourself you will live your life in a bubble of sorts. I say embrace the differences. Argue your world view and listen to theirs. In the end you will be wiser than you were before.
Exactly. Going out of your way to spend your leisure time engaging people in their interests doesn't enrich your life, or make you wiser, it just takes time away from you.
You're not going to be wiser listening to someone go on about some sports team. You're not going to be wiser listening to them go on about their kids. You're not going to become wiser listening to them talk about whatever TV show they like. They're not going to be any wiser listening to you talk about what you did the other day. Everyone is just going to be bored.
Life is too short to waste on trying to fit in or pretending to share interests with people you don't.
I mean no disrespect, so I will say this to the general reader, and not to you directly.
This comment and its parent are incredibly disheartening, given that I assume the people writing them are of above average intelligence and likely have a very creative bent - people on the top end of "ideally educated" in some of the categories the article lists.
I would forward this: If you find yourself both agreeing with the comments, but often marginalized or ostracized in ways you do not enjoy, (and only you can know this for sure, but we've all been there) it isn't 'other people' that have the issues, it is you. You are lacking in the skills mentioned in #4, #5 and possibly #7. You may think this doesn't matter, but I'd put forward that you are missing a large part of a fulfilling life experience without them.
There is a fine line between sharing every possible interest with every possible person and completely shutting yourself off to new viewpoints, ideas and experiences simply because they aren't your preferred topics. You will learn from unexpected sources, because you yourself are changing, each and everyday. I would encourage everyone to take some of their precious time and converse with people that aren't simply mirrors to your own innate desires.
It won't matter a lick to me, but it most certainly will help you grow and learn.
You, and several others in this thread, seem to be dead set on framing everyone who does not go out of their way to converse with people at all opportunities about things they do not have an interest in as people who lack social skills and are not open to new ideas as if they live in a physical bubble.
We all interact with people that do not hold our beliefs every day. We actually do not need to go out of our way to associate with them, mainly because we all have to go to work. In fact, people in general have to work at making sure everyone around them thinks exactly the same way and most can not do that. We basically all have to talk to people about shit we don't care about all day.
It's called polite conversation and it isn't anything I care to engage in in my limited free time, which is of course limited by the aforementioned work where I'm forced to interact with people.
> I assume the people writing them are of above average intelligence and likely have a very creative bent
If you did actually believe this, you would have taken what has been said as, at least, another viewpoint. You didn't, you proceeded to say those holding this view are missing parts of life and proceeded to imply they were immature needed to grow as people.
I would consider both positions more 'attitudes' than well-formed opinions on how one should act. You've been accused of having a 'bad attitude,' which I think is fair, but it ignores where you're coming from. You may be relying on this attitude to counterbalance a history of fruitless attempts at relating to people with seemingly little to offer. I bet you feel emancipated from worrying about doing something you don't actually feel inclined to do. That's fine, but just note that you may, later in life, find that people who are different from you might have a lot to offer. Or you may not. You can't make a definitive statement about this sort of thing.
To give an example from my life, a few years ago I realized I had become completely out of touch with "mainstream America," so I decided to make a project out of discovering why so many people live such apparently bland lives, watched so many television shows, liked fast-food chains, etc. Since then I've learned to relish conversations with people who seem to have nothing to offer me. I'll ask them probing questions and try to expand my own mental framework to incorporate a reality where their answers make sense.
Turns out a lot of people who hold positions of great responsibility, such as entrepreneurs, executives, and politicians, live quite boring lives by my standards, and I learned through this inquiry that there's a very good reason for this. Obviously this is a lossy generalization, but it seems to me that in many cases, because they are so burdened with risk in their work lives, they need to counterbalance this with total security and banality in their personal lives. And then others just see no reason to challenge themselves. C'est la vie!
On the flip side, I've also, like you, learned not to spend too much time with people who don't challenge me. Sometimes that means making difficult decisions, and sometimes it means maintaining a sour attitude temporarily. We all have our own energetic-emotional phase-space to navigate.
Just because I find many people uninteresting does not make me a broken person lacking in basic skills. I possess the skills discussed in spades. Spare me the insults, if you please.
What I've found is that taking your advice does not lead to the results you anticipate. It's really that simple. Upon experimentation, your hypothesis goes from "most certainly" producing positive results to "almost certainly not". Your expectations and reality are disjoint and you assert that the fault lies with me.
If I may return the favor and dispense unwanted advice, might I suggest some empathy? Take us at our word when we say that we've tried what you advocate and it hasn't produced what you say it will. Consider how this makes us feel and why we would choose to not continue to throw good money after bad (so to speak).
And hey! Maybe don't look to marginalize people because they are different from you. That'd be nice. We might actually consider taking you seriously once more.
You certainly have a very passionate view from a very different perspective than mine.
As I said, I'm not indending disrespect, but I won't pretend that I can in any way understand what motivates you aside from the reasons I put forward. Sorry if that angers you, but that's just where I stand. We'll have to agree to disagree.
> Upon experimentation, your hypothesis goes from "most certainly" producing positive results to "almost certainly not". Your expectations and reality are disjoint and you assert that the fault lies with me.
Well, the simple reason I suggest such a thing is that, assuming you are varying people, situations, and topics, it is the only variable that remains constant throughout. While you may not agree with how I see things, perhaps you can at least understand why.
Rest assured, i can only have empathy for you if I view your passionate reaction to the topic from my position. It seems to be a very negative place. I don't wish you any ill will; simply trying to do the very thing I'm suggesting to everyone else.
Thanks for the conversation, particularly if you found it difficult.
> Well, the simple reason I suggest such a thing is that, assuming you are varying people, situations, and topics, it is the only variable that remains constant throughout. While you may not agree with how I see things, perhaps you can at least understand why.
And that's fine. You're not wrong. Your perspective is just incomplete. You erred in assuming that new experiences and ideas can come only from a particular set of sources.
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio.
I should expand a bit. I know the idea is that by engaging with more people, one acquires empathy for more people and becomes a broader, more mature person.
In my case, the result was the opposite. I acquired misanthropy by discovering that most people aren't worth the time and energy to talk to.
It's a bit pie-in-the-sky to say, "everyone has a fascinating story of some kind and you just have to get it out of them." I think that's largely true, but I understand why you might disagree.
That said, I think you need to revise what you consider "worth it" to mean - it's not necessarily the case that you'll learn some useful new skill or hear a great story or derive some other immediately-tangible benefit from talking to people.
Not every interaction is equally valuable, your time is precious and you are an autonomous human being perfectly within your rights to reject a given social interaction, or interactions.
But human interaction is not reducible to an ROI calculation. It's far too complex and multivariate to be computable by your or anyone else's brain - the best you can do is a rough approximation.
I guess this is scattershot, but the phrase: "Just because I find many people uninteresting does not make me a broken person lacking in basic skills" stuck with me because it alone does, in fact, provide us ample evidence that there is a problem. I would never describe you as "broken" - I'm an introvert, I get it - but if you find "many" people uninteresting, that is a priori evidence that it is you who is uninteresting.
>I guess this is scattershot, but the phrase: "Just because I find many people uninteresting does not make me a broken person lacking in basic skills" stuck with me because it alone does, in fact, provide us ample evidence that there is a problem.
I agree! The problem is that people are remarkably intolerant of those who are different. For instance, if you don't find randomly selected people all utterly fascinating, it must be that you're a broken person.
> but if you find "many" people uninteresting, that is a priori evidence that it is you who is uninteresting
Well. No. The two are not bijective. You can be a very interesting person to most people while still finding most other people not very interesting. The reverse is also true.
> The two are not bijective. You can be a very interesting person to most people while still finding most other people not very interesting.
Indeed, that theoretically can be true. In every instance I have ever heard of, witnessed or been made aware of in any way, however, it holds. The plural of anecdote is not data, granted.
But ask any advice columnist. If you find other people boring as a matter of routine, that's not because they're boring, it's because you are.
Same as with any other part of life. If X keeps happening to you over and over again, and X is statistically uncommon, then either you have weird luck or X is related to something inside you, rather than something to do with the world at large.
[I wrote another reply earlier. In retrospect, it was pretty ranty. I'll try a different angle.]
I've been an introvert forever. My parents in particular would tell me things like "conversation is a game of throw and catch". When I got older, I realized I wasn't shy -- I just hated making small talk. So I responded "Believe it or not, I know how to hold a conversation. I just don't like small talk."
Whenever I tried to steer the conversation towards what I considered more interesting topics, "Um, I didn't want to turn this into a philosophical conversation." Cool. We have divergent interests. I'm capable of keeping myself busy. But my parents would continued to repeat "you gotta throw back the ball sometimes".
So one day, as a teenager, I decided I would try this whole "congeniality" shtick. You know, for science. I was genuinely congenial for several months. I can assert this with confidence because people noticed. Several complimented me on how I came "out of my shell".
At the end of my experiment, I decided congeniality was exactly as overrated as I thought it would be. I've generally been schizotypal-by-default ever since, and never looked back.
> know the idea is that by engaging with more people, one acquires empathy for more people and becomes a broader, more mature person.
I'm not sure where you get that conclusion, but the source doesn't really matter - I think it's a bit backwards. Engaging with more people might broaden your perspective, but I don't think the outcome of engaging with people is more empathy. My experience is that empathy is something you should cultivate if you want to have a better understanding of others and their motivations. This is something you may want to do if you wish to have a relationship of some kind, or to influence their behavior.
Have you considered the inverse? That perhaps people find it very worthwhile to talk to you? Any way, thanks for explaining. You live your life the way that works best for you:)
Bully for them. Why might I wish to indulge them? I have limited quantities of time and energy, and sometimes I have things I want to do besides indulge the whims of randomly selected strangers.
Which is to say yes, I have considered that. And I'm pleased to have brought you an alternative perspective.
You probably won't understand where I'm coming from here, but I'll say it anyway, since that's the type of person I happen to be:
There is a fine line between using rational and reasoned thought to explain an unpopular way of thinking and using it to simply disguse being an asshole. My guess from reading your comments is that this isn't something that is really important to you, which is perfectly valid of course.
As an introvert that hates conversation myself, particularly small talk, I've come to realize that life is infinitely more enjoyable when you are aware of what side of the line people are placing you on at any given time.
One of the things I've learned is that "asshole" is basically a stand-in for a host of social norms. Thus, "being an asshole" is not complying with someone else's idea of social norms.
I'm generally aware of where I stand, but isn't always the same as wanting to be on the polite-and-not-an-asshole side.
At the very least, it's good practice to make the effort to refine the skill of small talk with strangers, ice breakers, and acknowledging our shared existence on this hunk of rock flying through space.
We're all in this together, and we all have our daily grinds and griefs.
Feel free to scoff, and scoff aloud at least because maybe someone else will hear you and let you know they're in the same boat.
Useful skills? Absolutely. I just prefer not to invest energy in using them more than I must.
My thought process runs like this:
> I've acknowledged our shared existence. Over. Done with. No mas. Can I go back to my book now? It's way more interesting than all this dreary existence-acknowledging crap.
I don't want someone to hear me and tell me I'm not alone. I already know that. I want to go back to my book or whatever.
There was an aid in a lab at my school who would routinely berate students when he was programming or playing a video game on his laptop:
Student: "Is that C#?"
Aid: "What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you ask questions you already know the answer to?"
The aid was rejecting a universal ice-breaker because, in his mind, it was beneath him.
I would imagine he didn't have very diverse conversations.