The lost art of conversation.

chic said:
In all fairness, it's safer to converse about the kids and grandkids, your health etc because broader topics can be problematic these days when everyone is looking for reasons to hate everyone else. Division is just so sad. :confused:
Click to expand...

Fortunately there are still some people who look for the things that unite us. Those are the ones I gravitate towards.
 

Alizerine said:
I had this problem with a long arranged call from an old acquaintance. She talked at length about every detail of her family life mostly, I think, to impress me. After an hour or so I interrupted her to inform her of the passing of a mutual friend. My solution was to not be available for her next call.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but for some people, all they have in their lives that is the least bit impressive is their good families. I would much rather hear about peoples' families than hear about their stuff, their homes, and their trips since I don't have a home, much stuff, and I cannot afford fancy trips. But you're right - if you don't have kids and all that person talks about is their kids, then they are lacking some sensitivity. But also, I think some people rattle on just because they are lonely. How can we all, no matter what our age, be sensitive to the fact that we live in lonely times?
 
VintageBetter said:
Yeah, but for some people, all they have in their lives that is the least bit impressive is their good families. I would much rather hear about peoples' families than hear about their stuff, their homes, and their trips since I don't have a home, much stuff, and I cannot afford fancy trips. But you're right - if you don't have kids and all that person talks about is their kids, then they are lacking some sensitivity. But also, I think some people rattle on just because they are lonely. How can we all, no matter what our age, be sensitive to the fact that we live in lonely times?
Click to expand...
The woman I was speaking of presented her family in terms of their wealth, position and worldly travels. That is not to say she wasn't lonely.
 

Although the OP's subject is about issues with balanced face to face conversation with acquaintances, the the secondary issue mentioned, is one of a limited range of safe subjects that is also quite evident on web community boards like this, a change that began in the AOL era. At least with those that have banned politics that otherwise may annoyingly overwhelm all other subjects. On this board a minority of members tend to start most thread conversations in simple ways and they are predictably along the limited lines the OP mentioned plus usual news media social, cultural, entertainment, humor, sports, and everyday common activity and annoyances.

And that leads to the same dominance of one-line responses as it does on post smartphone social media this person avoids. Nothing wrong with some one-liners but IMO it is out of balance.

I'm quite aware of that, so as someone interested in expanding the scope of discussions, the few threads I do bother to start tend to be outside the usual type of conversations even though I expect few are going to answer, haha. But some of us by doing so in small ways may broaden and draw in the kind of members that will increasingly participate more in science, technology, and societal complexities.

There are certainly web boards where these deeper subjects are regularly discussed at length. I've quietly pointed to some such boards. They existed before AOL arose and still do though a majority of web users are not at all aware. Most sites where instead longer postings occur on average are at enthusiast websites like photography gear at dpreview.com, or pro sports enthusiast sites like bleacherreport.com, or science sites like those about medical science, or sport enthusiast participation sites say like for mountain bike riding or golf, and much more.
 
Last edited:
Alizerine said:
The woman I was speaking of presented her family in terms of their wealth, position and worldly travels. That is not to say she wasn't lonely.
Click to expand...
Yes. but we also have to remember that in 'Murica, wealth, position and worldly travels are the coin of the realm. We have Alexander Hamilton on our $10 bills and then Our Favorite Presidents on the other bills. Hamilton was not a president , but he did invent our whole financial system, invented the stock market, basically, so we honor him, the system he created, and have always honored wealth in this nation - since the very start of it. Visit Washington D.C. and you can visit some rich men's homes - Washington's and Jefferson's estates. Visit Springfield, Illinois, and you can see Lincoln's home and see he was just a middle class guy before the Presidency. That's probably part of why so many have such an enduring admiration for him.

She's just speaking in terms of the coin of the realm. She's been taught this via our media and our society for 60+ years. She knows the language well, as we all do, whether we know we know it or not. We might hate the language, but we know it.

BTW, wealth is the coin of the realm in many other nations too.

There has been a muttering in D.C. about putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. One has to wonder if it would improve society at all if we put some non-rich, heoric people on our money? It would be more in keeping with the "all men are created equal" theme we say we believe in, but would it change attitudes among the elected?
 
Last edited:
Changing the faces on currency alone may not directly lead to significant shifts in attitudes among elected officials or society as a whole. Attitudes and beliefs are complex and multifaceted, influenced by a range of factors.

For meaningful change to occur, it often requires broader efforts, such as educational initiatives, policy reforms, and inclusive dialogue. It involves fostering a more comprehensive understanding of history, promoting empathy, and addressing systemic inequalities.

The inclusion of diverse voices and perspectives in decision-making processes and public discourse is crucial for creating a society that values the contributions and worth of individuals from all backgrounds. While the presence of non-rich heroic figures on currency may be a step in that direction, it should be accompanied by broader efforts to address systemic issues and promote inclusivity and equality in all aspects of society.
 
Grandmothers, it seems, have to talk nonstop about their "wonderful" grandchildren and all the "wonderful" things they are doing because those grandmothers don't have a life of their own. At some stage in their lives they stopped living and now are only living other people's lives. VERY, VERY SAD!
 
… and some older folks apparently do not have any grand kids that help fill their long lonely days that they can talk about when mindless chitchat does not fill their days!
 
And let's not forget that some seniors may actually prefer not having grandchildren. They might enjoy the freedom and flexibility that comes with being child-free, or they may have a variety of interests that keep them busy and fulfilled. 😊
 
I think "mindless chitchat" and "small talk" get a bad rap sometimes. I think that those kinds of communication amongst humans is what helped humans evolve to be top of the foodchain. Now is it a good thing that we're top of the foodchain? Maybe. Maybe not. I have my doubts some days. But being able to engage in chitchat and small talk with others usually shows a level of comfort with that interaction that most humans seem to need, evolution saw to that for good or ill.
 
Some folks are good at small talk and some are not, I sometimes wish I were better at it for sitting in silence with little to add to the conversation is just as unconfortable as listing to someone who will not let a word in edgeways!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top