Coincidentally, I just made a new goal a few days ago to try to talk to at least one stranger whenever I'm out and about. This happened because I was in the grocery store and saw a guy with a t-shirt from an art exhibit I was considering going to, and asked him about it. He went on WAY too long, 5-10 minutes, lots of details and repetitions about all the displays and which way to go in the exhibit, and I was thinking about how that rain coming in would probably soak me if I ever got out to my car, but in the end, I was so happy I talked with this funny little guy, because I met a memorable, enthusiastic character, and I want to do more of that.
Interesting that so many people thought that people would hate the conversations! Maybe it's just my inclinations as a Southerner but getting to chat with a stranger for 45 minutes sounds great to me, especially without any pressure to actually get along on a deeper level like a date setting.
Interesting topic. I do find it ironic that so many studies suggest that loneliness is increasing, particularly among the young. Yet, when given the opportunity to engage with another human being, most avoid it or view the interaction as anxiety producing or generally negative.
Communication with another person - particularly an open-ended conversation - is now something to be dreaded and avoided. So, loneliness increases as we continue to avoid the very interactions we desperately need.
Communication is a skill that, like any skill, must be practiced. Modern society has enabled us to largely communicate from bunkers - text messages, Tweets, e-mails, Slack channel posts, social media posts, comment sections etc. None of which encourage or teach you how to communicate more effectively.
Even the mundane voicemail now induces fear and panic in many people. They resort to scripts and multiple attempts to get a simple straightforward communication "right." Communicating small talk with a stranger is beyond a bridge too far. So, these results are not surprising at all to me.
Admittedly, I could be wrong, but what I have observed as a variable for a future study...is that older people - those raised in a prior time where direct personal communication had to be done to get along in life - invite conversations and engagement. This is the demographic that also tends to enjoy things like book clubs, and bingo games and bowling leagues. The kinds of people who when in need seek out support from real people to help them and not look to the internet, FAQs, chats or bots.
They enjoy the excitement of meeting new people and having new conversations and experiences. They enjoy human interactions and communications and what it adds to their lives. As a result, they are better at it. It is more natural for them, almost nostalgic.
On the other hand, it is generally the young who I see, with their noise cancelling headphones and work from home ethos who increasingly see technology as a substitute for social interactions and struggle with ordinary human engagement like those that you describe. They also report feeling increasingly isolated, depressed, and alone.
It strikes me that our technologies have provided us expanded opportunities for more and easier communication...but not better, richer, or healthier interactions.
This is really great! Just the right amount of info! Or maybe there could have been even more! It definitely wasn't too long!
This is a really funny line and point: "...a literal game of telephone about a telephone."
This is a really meaningful paragraph: "I know that scientists love to complain about science journalists: they take our beautiful, pristine science, and they dumb it down, slop it up, and serve it by the shovelful to the heaving masses of dullards and bozos! Nobody wants to admit that scientists cause this problem in the first place. Journal articles suck—they’re usually 50 pages of dry-ass prose (plus a 100-page supplement and accompanying data files) that must simultaneously function as a scientific report, an instruction manual for someone who wants to redo your procedure, a plea to the journal’s gatekeepers, a defense against critics, a press release, and a job application. So of course no one’s going to read them, of course someone’s going to try to turn them into something intelligible for the general public—who, by the way, really would like to know what’s going on in our labs, and deserves to know—and of course stuff’s gonna get messed up in that process. We let this system exist because, I guess, we assume scientists are so smart they could never speak to a normal person. But guess what, buddy: if you can only explain yourself to your colleagues, you ain’t that smart"
This is a really great takeaway: "So probably the best advice is: worry less."
Also I have a few questions:
1) Did any pairings of people explicitly discuss their desires for conversation length within the conversation?
2) Did you collect any data on where people might have been on the neurotypical-to-neurodivergent spectrum?
I'm pretty confident that if I were a participant, I would have the inclination to talk as long as possible UNLESS I found out that the other person wanted to end our chat sooner, which I would endeavor to find out from them directly. (Definitely that's what I would do NOW, having read about the study. But I think I would have done something like that even before I had.)
I want an Experimental History "This cup is so loud" cup.
If anyone has ever been in a group where there's a longish pause and it's obvious no one really wants to leave (but you must), I've always found an abrupt "WELP, see ya later!" accompanied by a big smile works well.
I've probably listened to more conversations than anyone alive, between recordings of jailhouse phone calls (to an outside party), recordings of police interviews, and a device I used to have that let me listen in on cell phones from passing motorists. Furthermore, I grew up in the era of landline phones where - no joke - it was nothing to have a six-hour chat with someone, sometimes even falling asleep while you're talking.
Obviously, I never interviewed anyone about their perception of whether the conversation went on for too long/short/etc. What I can tell you, however, is that most conversations seem incredibly boring to an outside observer but are critically important to participants.
First, the only conversations which seem engaging to outsiders are those in TV and films. As a screenwriter, I can tell you that these are VERY artificially constructed, and for good reason. Re-enacting a genuine conversation from a transcript would put the audience to sleep.
Second, one of the reasons why conversations seem boring to outsiders is because so much more is going on than an exchange of words aka "dialogue" aka what we think conversations are like due to film/TV. In some cases, it's literally passing the time with another person. You no longer feel alone. Other times, you're comparing and contrasting in order to find compatibility, hence the "oh where you from?" type of leading questions. In other words, it's kind of like an interview to see "can me and this person be friends/friendly?" Other times, it's almost like a mutual therapy session where you both get to release what's on your mind and the other person's job is just to listen.
Since you have recordings to review, go back and pick one at random. What you're gonna find is that there are short bursts where real/vital information is exchanged interspersed between long lulls. Someone might be talking about how "a cup is loud" and then boom, say something like "Hey, did I tell you I just got out of the hospital last week? Yep, cracked seven ribs."
Actually, it's quite a fascinating phenomenon, and now I'm kinda wishing I could eavesdrop on some conversations again because the rhythm and the give-and-take is VERY interesting once you learn how to interpret it. Hmm, maybe that's how I got into writing such good dialogue because the trick is to compress all the vital bits and trim out the (natural) lulls.
I employ the following practice when talking to people. After every couple of minutes, I pause for several seconds (up to 5). This gives the other person a chance to talk. It also gives them a chance to end the conversation without interrupting me. I try to pause very casually, so it does not seem as if I am pausing for a purpose.
I wonder how the "peak-end rule" affected people's evaluations of their conversations. My understanding is that people, without realizing it, tend to evaluate the goodness/badness of their past experiences by calculating the average of their feelings at the peak pain/happiness of the experience and the pain/happiness they were feeling at the end of the experience. For example, in these conversations, if a participant felt an awkwardness level of 8/10 at their most awkward and a 2/10 at the end, they are likely to rate their overall awkwardness as a 5/10.
A fully rational person might graph their feelings during every minute of the conversation, then find the integral of that graph to calculate the total happiness/awkwardness of the conversation. This seems like the most logical way to calculate total goodness/badness, because it allows the person to take into consideration the duration that they felt specific emotions. However, this obviously isn't how humans work: rather than constantly answering questions in the most ideal way, we tend to use tricks to simplify questions, which is where the peak-end rule comes from. There's decent evidence to back up this finding; when asked to choose between 2 experiences that are equally painful for 60 seconds, people tend to prefer to relive the experience that ends with an additional 30 seconds of diminished pain, rather than an experience that would end immediately, without the additional 30 seconds. This finding occurs when people reason on memories of their past experiences, rather than the exact math of the experiences.
Within the context of this study, the peak-end rule might be changing some people's overall evaluations of the conversations. Perhaps the "too long"ers still rated the conversation as more enjoyable than it actually was for them if they were cut off at a particularly pleasant moment. Perhaps the "too short"ers would have preferred a much shorter conversation if they had been cut off at a slightly later time. The overall evaluations might not give any evidence about the enjoyability of the loud cup moments, instead providing evidence about the enjoyability of only the end and the peak of the conversation.
Obligatory share of Larry David saying there should be a “party sheriff” that observes everyone at a party and ends conversations when they are going too long (jump to 5:39): https://youtu.be/GtqV3HtZt94?si=7LF49vCdXBcOr1td
Omg Adam, I was waiting at a crowded airport gate reading this and laughed way too often Out Loud!!! I realized if anyone Had asked me what was funny I would have had to answer like you did at the end and….🤪 anyway, another delightful read. Thanks! I would love to have a 9 minute differential chat with you someday! Ha! Greetings from a Psychology Librarian! 😎
Coincidentally, I just made a new goal a few days ago to try to talk to at least one stranger whenever I'm out and about. This happened because I was in the grocery store and saw a guy with a t-shirt from an art exhibit I was considering going to, and asked him about it. He went on WAY too long, 5-10 minutes, lots of details and repetitions about all the displays and which way to go in the exhibit, and I was thinking about how that rain coming in would probably soak me if I ever got out to my car, but in the end, I was so happy I talked with this funny little guy, because I met a memorable, enthusiastic character, and I want to do more of that.
Interesting that so many people thought that people would hate the conversations! Maybe it's just my inclinations as a Southerner but getting to chat with a stranger for 45 minutes sounds great to me, especially without any pressure to actually get along on a deeper level like a date setting.
This is the sort of thing I'd enjoy taking part in as I like talking to strangers but politeness usually precludes me from talking to them at length.
I wonder how this would look just with people who considered themselves good conversationalists.
Interesting topic. I do find it ironic that so many studies suggest that loneliness is increasing, particularly among the young. Yet, when given the opportunity to engage with another human being, most avoid it or view the interaction as anxiety producing or generally negative.
Communication with another person - particularly an open-ended conversation - is now something to be dreaded and avoided. So, loneliness increases as we continue to avoid the very interactions we desperately need.
Communication is a skill that, like any skill, must be practiced. Modern society has enabled us to largely communicate from bunkers - text messages, Tweets, e-mails, Slack channel posts, social media posts, comment sections etc. None of which encourage or teach you how to communicate more effectively.
Even the mundane voicemail now induces fear and panic in many people. They resort to scripts and multiple attempts to get a simple straightforward communication "right." Communicating small talk with a stranger is beyond a bridge too far. So, these results are not surprising at all to me.
Admittedly, I could be wrong, but what I have observed as a variable for a future study...is that older people - those raised in a prior time where direct personal communication had to be done to get along in life - invite conversations and engagement. This is the demographic that also tends to enjoy things like book clubs, and bingo games and bowling leagues. The kinds of people who when in need seek out support from real people to help them and not look to the internet, FAQs, chats or bots.
They enjoy the excitement of meeting new people and having new conversations and experiences. They enjoy human interactions and communications and what it adds to their lives. As a result, they are better at it. It is more natural for them, almost nostalgic.
On the other hand, it is generally the young who I see, with their noise cancelling headphones and work from home ethos who increasingly see technology as a substitute for social interactions and struggle with ordinary human engagement like those that you describe. They also report feeling increasingly isolated, depressed, and alone.
It strikes me that our technologies have provided us expanded opportunities for more and easier communication...but not better, richer, or healthier interactions.
I wonder how the results would change if alcoholic beverages were provided.
Dear Adam,
This is really great! Just the right amount of info! Or maybe there could have been even more! It definitely wasn't too long!
This is a really funny line and point: "...a literal game of telephone about a telephone."
This is a really meaningful paragraph: "I know that scientists love to complain about science journalists: they take our beautiful, pristine science, and they dumb it down, slop it up, and serve it by the shovelful to the heaving masses of dullards and bozos! Nobody wants to admit that scientists cause this problem in the first place. Journal articles suck—they’re usually 50 pages of dry-ass prose (plus a 100-page supplement and accompanying data files) that must simultaneously function as a scientific report, an instruction manual for someone who wants to redo your procedure, a plea to the journal’s gatekeepers, a defense against critics, a press release, and a job application. So of course no one’s going to read them, of course someone’s going to try to turn them into something intelligible for the general public—who, by the way, really would like to know what’s going on in our labs, and deserves to know—and of course stuff’s gonna get messed up in that process. We let this system exist because, I guess, we assume scientists are so smart they could never speak to a normal person. But guess what, buddy: if you can only explain yourself to your colleagues, you ain’t that smart"
This is a really great takeaway: "So probably the best advice is: worry less."
Also I have a few questions:
1) Did any pairings of people explicitly discuss their desires for conversation length within the conversation?
2) Did you collect any data on where people might have been on the neurotypical-to-neurodivergent spectrum?
I'm pretty confident that if I were a participant, I would have the inclination to talk as long as possible UNLESS I found out that the other person wanted to end our chat sooner, which I would endeavor to find out from them directly. (Definitely that's what I would do NOW, having read about the study. But I think I would have done something like that even before I had.)
Regardless, thanks for sharing!
Fascinating stuff as always!
Love
Myq
Agreed on these follow up questions, but also add:
3) Is there any data on how attractive conversationalists perceived each other? This feels relevant to both conversation length and satisfaction
I want an Experimental History "This cup is so loud" cup.
If anyone has ever been in a group where there's a longish pause and it's obvious no one really wants to leave (but you must), I've always found an abrupt "WELP, see ya later!" accompanied by a big smile works well.
It's going to be weird no matter, just lean in.
Well, at least you had one humorous line in it! Fascinating study. Blue
“This cup is so loud!”
Oh man, how I laughed. I could clearly picture this scene.
I think this is an especially apt post considering the meet up this weekend. Informative and enjoyable post as always!
Very interesting.
I've probably listened to more conversations than anyone alive, between recordings of jailhouse phone calls (to an outside party), recordings of police interviews, and a device I used to have that let me listen in on cell phones from passing motorists. Furthermore, I grew up in the era of landline phones where - no joke - it was nothing to have a six-hour chat with someone, sometimes even falling asleep while you're talking.
Obviously, I never interviewed anyone about their perception of whether the conversation went on for too long/short/etc. What I can tell you, however, is that most conversations seem incredibly boring to an outside observer but are critically important to participants.
First, the only conversations which seem engaging to outsiders are those in TV and films. As a screenwriter, I can tell you that these are VERY artificially constructed, and for good reason. Re-enacting a genuine conversation from a transcript would put the audience to sleep.
Second, one of the reasons why conversations seem boring to outsiders is because so much more is going on than an exchange of words aka "dialogue" aka what we think conversations are like due to film/TV. In some cases, it's literally passing the time with another person. You no longer feel alone. Other times, you're comparing and contrasting in order to find compatibility, hence the "oh where you from?" type of leading questions. In other words, it's kind of like an interview to see "can me and this person be friends/friendly?" Other times, it's almost like a mutual therapy session where you both get to release what's on your mind and the other person's job is just to listen.
Since you have recordings to review, go back and pick one at random. What you're gonna find is that there are short bursts where real/vital information is exchanged interspersed between long lulls. Someone might be talking about how "a cup is loud" and then boom, say something like "Hey, did I tell you I just got out of the hospital last week? Yep, cracked seven ribs."
Actually, it's quite a fascinating phenomenon, and now I'm kinda wishing I could eavesdrop on some conversations again because the rhythm and the give-and-take is VERY interesting once you learn how to interpret it. Hmm, maybe that's how I got into writing such good dialogue because the trick is to compress all the vital bits and trim out the (natural) lulls.
I employ the following practice when talking to people. After every couple of minutes, I pause for several seconds (up to 5). This gives the other person a chance to talk. It also gives them a chance to end the conversation without interrupting me. I try to pause very casually, so it does not seem as if I am pausing for a purpose.
I wonder how the "peak-end rule" affected people's evaluations of their conversations. My understanding is that people, without realizing it, tend to evaluate the goodness/badness of their past experiences by calculating the average of their feelings at the peak pain/happiness of the experience and the pain/happiness they were feeling at the end of the experience. For example, in these conversations, if a participant felt an awkwardness level of 8/10 at their most awkward and a 2/10 at the end, they are likely to rate their overall awkwardness as a 5/10.
A fully rational person might graph their feelings during every minute of the conversation, then find the integral of that graph to calculate the total happiness/awkwardness of the conversation. This seems like the most logical way to calculate total goodness/badness, because it allows the person to take into consideration the duration that they felt specific emotions. However, this obviously isn't how humans work: rather than constantly answering questions in the most ideal way, we tend to use tricks to simplify questions, which is where the peak-end rule comes from. There's decent evidence to back up this finding; when asked to choose between 2 experiences that are equally painful for 60 seconds, people tend to prefer to relive the experience that ends with an additional 30 seconds of diminished pain, rather than an experience that would end immediately, without the additional 30 seconds. This finding occurs when people reason on memories of their past experiences, rather than the exact math of the experiences.
Within the context of this study, the peak-end rule might be changing some people's overall evaluations of the conversations. Perhaps the "too long"ers still rated the conversation as more enjoyable than it actually was for them if they were cut off at a particularly pleasant moment. Perhaps the "too short"ers would have preferred a much shorter conversation if they had been cut off at a slightly later time. The overall evaluations might not give any evidence about the enjoyability of the loud cup moments, instead providing evidence about the enjoyability of only the end and the peak of the conversation.
Obligatory share of Larry David saying there should be a “party sheriff” that observes everyone at a party and ends conversations when they are going too long (jump to 5:39): https://youtu.be/GtqV3HtZt94?si=7LF49vCdXBcOr1td
Omg Adam, I was waiting at a crowded airport gate reading this and laughed way too often Out Loud!!! I realized if anyone Had asked me what was funny I would have had to answer like you did at the end and….🤪 anyway, another delightful read. Thanks! I would love to have a 9 minute differential chat with you someday! Ha! Greetings from a Psychology Librarian! 😎