Do you want to stay up to date with Arthur’s writing? Register To receive an email every time a new column is released.
AAS ruleI avoid social and professional dinners. Not because I am anti -social or I don’t like food; Completely the opposite. This is because conversations are generally long, superficial and tedious. Recently, however, my wife and I attended a dinner with several other long -term couples who turned out to be the most fascinating meeting that we have known for a long time. The hostess, whom we had not met once before, opened the evening with a few subtleties, but then almost immediately asked this question to the couples present: “Have you ever had a major crisis in your marriage?”
Absolutely the icebreaker, right? Faced with this, you might think that you would apologize and that you were a hasty retirement. But first, keep the social background in mind: this dinner took place in Madrid, not in Minneapolis. More specifically, the hostess introduced the subject with a rare degree of grace and competence: she did so in a way that communicated a real curiosity for the experience of others and with heat, humor and Love. His question attracted fascinating, frank and thoughtful answers – therefore, far from itching to leave, I found that the hours passed (not thin, since many dinners in Madrid pass after midnight).
The opportunity left me thinking that most of us could learn something or two about how to participate in a conversation – even a delicate or difficult thing – therefore that the exchange inspires joy and interest . Fortunately, many research exists that can show how exactly this.
SOme nobody Have more ease with conversation than others. Extraverts in particular find invigorating social intercourse, while introverts generally feel it as trying. The neuroscientists offered an interesting explanation for this. For a 2011 article in the newspaper Cognitive neurosciencesThe researchers used electroencephalography to measure a form of brain activity, known as P300 wave, when the subjects were presented with human faces. They find That extroverts had higher P300 amplitudes than introverts, which means that social stimuli drew their attention (an obvious prerequisite, let’s say, engaging vigorously in the conversation). The introverts have shown less brain activity associated with the attraction or interest in the faces of potential interlocutors – so individuals of this type, we can reasonably assume, would be less started for an animated conversation.
Another group for whom conversations can be difficult is people on the spectrum of autism, even if their autism is soft and they work very well. Experts in this field offer three explanations on this subject: resistance to changing subjects, a failure to ask follow -up questions and a tendency to fix on a particular subject to the exclusion of others.
A common problem with conversations is that we do not understand as well as we think. Writing in the Journal of Social Social Psychology In 2011, five researchers watch That even with friends and spouses, people think they understand the planned meaning of what others say 85% of the time, while the real figure of the reliability of their understanding is 44%. As researchers note, a question as innocent as “What did you do?” could transmit a real interest, a discomfort in the delay of the other person or a suspicion on what they have done. This instability of meaning could be due to a tonal ambiguity or because people do not listen to well enough. In a recent experience In which the subjects were responsible for making someone known, a conversation partner did not listen to the other person for 24% of the interaction.
AveryThe main reason why the conversations is difficult is that we are not preparing for them or do not work to improve. This is the argument of my colleague from Harvard Alison Wood Brooks (no relationship), whose new book, Talk: the science of conversation and the art of being ourselvesfollows decades of research on how we interact with people and how to do it better and more appreciable. As Brooks shows, people generally spend more time thinking about what they will do to carry at a dinner that they will do talk about. The researchers discovered that, apart from laziness, this carelessness on the conversation is that 50% believe that reflection on subjects in advance will make a forced and artificial conversation; Only 12% of people think that such mental preparation will improve the experience.
Brooks usefully presents four principles supported by research to lead a strong and pleasant conversation, for which it provides a mnemonic device called, appropriately, to speak.
T is for subjects.
Before entering a conversation, think of a few subjects you want to discuss with your partners. It was undoubtedly in the mind of our hostess in Madrid. She was well aware that her guests shared her values and beliefs about marriage and almost certainly weighed the risks in advance to launch a delicate subject. Its icebreaker was not spontaneous but premeditated, which – bankrupt to make the gambit clumsy – increased the level of confidence around the table.
This tactic is appropriate for parameters other than dinners. I usually write important questions I want to ask my wife. Try to keep a list of subjects that would be good when you speak with various important people in your life. You can use a question prepared as a good reason for a call or a visit.
A is for request.
Obviously, a rigid interrogation does not make a great conversation. My young adult students generally complain that this method of questioning is the only way their parents communicate with them, which suggests that some parents are stuck in a model dating from the moment when their children were small and have not developed a relationship With them as mature adults. This is a particular generational and perhaps intra-family problem. But as a rule, a conversation without The questions are incompatidizing – it’s not fun to speak with someone who seems to be totally incurator.
The difference is that a good interrogation requires deep listening. When you really focus on what the other person says, follow -up questions come naturally. On the other hand, when listening means nothing more than waiting to speak – so often the case in my world in the academic world – the following questions are nonexistent or pro form.
L is for lightness.
Brooks is a great supporter of humor because he makes conversations fun. This does not mean that you have to join an improvisation comedy troop. In fact, successful humor rarely means telling jokes; This means maintaining a “good humor”: a lightness and a gentle spirit, which prevent things from being too heavy and serious. We could consider laughter more as a social lubricant than a response to a line of punch. Indeed, in a study, researchers find Only 10 to 15% of laughter in a conversation responded to something really humorous.
An easy way to maintain this type of good humor is simply smiling, a lot for your own advantage as a conversational partners. Psychologists have long known That when we smile, it can raise our own mood. In addition, the good humor transmitted with a smile has been noted be contagious in interactions; A person will tend to take the emotional signal of a sympathetic smiling face and to feel happier. When you prepare for your next dinner, try to smile in the mirror while putting your tie or makeup.
K is for kindness.
It is probably the most important ingredient in a good conversation. You might consider it as a generosity, because it involves thinking about what the other in a conversation needs and giving it. As Brooks notes, it could be encouragement, difficult comments, new ideas, a quick laugh, a resonance box, difficult questions or just a break. But that always means focusing mainly on the other person, rather than yourself.
Maybe it seems exhausting or unprecedented. Completely the opposite. As many studies findUsing your resources for others tends to promote more happiness than using them on yourself. This should not be limited to material resources, of course, in fact, your attention can be the most precious thing you can share at a given moment.
ODo not last To keep in mind to have better conversations: during our Madrid dinner, the main ingredient in the sparkling exchange was his depth. The reason why I escape the dinners in general is their surface, their concentration on subjects without real meaning, the type of meeting which simply passes the harmless time, without real investment or risk. I don’t care about your new golf clubs. Life is short; go deep or go home, I say.
Am I a weird, to hold this attitude? Science does not say. A 2010 study in the journal Psychological sciences find That the higher the percentage of conversation, the lower the well-being of participants, while the higher the percentage of substantial subjects, the higher the well-being.
So go ahead: invite us and ask us on our wedding. Ms. Brooks and I will be fortunately after midnight.