Small Talk
Why do I feel so ungenuine every time I spend time with certain people? I wouldn’t say I’m really not myself – I don’t say things I don’t believe in etc. I suppose I don’t share a lot of myself, the spiritual side especially, which is really such a huge part. And I’ve never liked indulging in small talk – but when I do, why should I feel so ungenuine?
Is it because I engage in topics I don’t believe in? Silly inconsequential things, at least to me. But if they are important to those talking about them, then surely I am just being a kind person by engaging in that conversation. Then I come away feeling as though that time is wasted, even though I can be at home ‘achieving’ nothing, and not feel as though that time is wasted. It’s bizarre.
Or is it because the other party to the conversation is also not really interested in the small talk? That all people in the conversation want to stray on to topics they care deeply about, but daren’t, and instead stick to the ‘safe’ small talk. Maybe I am mistaken in thinking I’m an especially ‘deep’ person, because I always want to talk and think about the ‘big’ stuff and just skip past all the other surface noise – maybe everyone is really like that, but they don’t allow themselves to go there.
I guess the issue is you leave feeling as though you didn’t actually connect to anyone in that 2 hour long time spent together. And that really is a waste of time. It’s like you’re just paying lip service to spending time ‘with the in-laws’ or ‘with that other couple’ or ‘with your mum’, and so on the outside it looks as though job is done. That’s the point though isn’t it – the job is done, if the job is just a check box, but if you want to go deeper and really spend time with these people on a meaningful level, to connect with them, then you’ve only achieved the external goal – but it’s empty. It’s shallow.
Now I have begun to cut out a lot of the friendships I have that involve shallow box ticking as opposed to genuine connection. Where you smile at things that don't resonate and the deeper parts of yourself get no airtime, or worse, do, but are unwanted parties to the conversation. Should you really do that with your family though? Can you do it with your boyfriend’s friends? Are you supposed to just suck it up and spend valuable time in your life with people you don’t connect with, for the sake of a wider goal. What exactly is that wider goal? ‘Pretend’ to have a good relationship?
The more I delve into my spiritual side, the more I find how much of a reclusive person I am. The more I grow, I find there are so many people and conversations that I leave realising how much they drain me, or at least don’t grow me more. Is it my ego or my soul that wants to cut these people out of life? Not because I think badly of them, less of them, or don’t think they’re lovely people, but simply because we’re on different wavelengths.
There are a few people who I feel able to bare my soul to, and because it’s few and far between I often have plenty to say, and find myself talking far too much! Sharing the theories I have read to people with eager ears. I wonder though, if I had more of these people in my life, or even spent more time with them, would I run out of things to say to them too? Is it simply that language is over used? We create problems or at least turn them into bigger deals than they are so that we have something to talk about? Relive issues in the past, or create ones in the future, or lament over things in others people’s lives and how we don’t like them. If you remove all these things, what is there left to talk about?
Perhaps that’s why there’s talk of a new generation of crystal children, who are out-evolving language; or at least only using it as a last resort. They are said to be extremely efficient communicators, but rely much more on non-verbal communication and other forms of communication such as sign language. They don’t appear to value the ability to talk as highly. Often, language seems to be as much a part of the problem as the solution – it can be misunderstood, and we value the words being said higher than the non-verbal cues and the intent behind it. Communication via text or in newspapers is fantastic for certain topics like arranging a meeting or conveying cold hard information, but it is open to varying interpretations for ‘woolier’ information including opinions and feelings.
“I’d rather feel crap about the truth, than be made to feel better with a lie” Anon
Okay so Anon is actually me! I am very much a person who likes to know the truth, even when it hurts, hell, especially when it hurts. Because, as I also like to say - there is nothing personal about the truth”. There is something personal about lies, or cover ups though – it’s constructed and conscious rather than ‘just being’.
Language makes it so much easier to lie, to cover up, rather than tell the truth. If we relied on our basic instincts, tapped into people’s moods, and relied more heavily on non-verbal cues, we’d be much more aware of what’s really going on in a person’s mind or heart. Why do we allow ourselves to believe words to the contrary of all these primeval instincts and abilities? To retain our denial a little longer? Because the truth hurts? Of course all forms of communication can be manipulated, but I wondered if we would even have dreamed up ‘lying’ if we had never learned to speak. Do you see one deer lying to another deer? Does your cat hide its true emotions from you?
I know, we’re more evolved than animals, and I’m going off on a tangent. To bring it back though, I want to consider the fact that it is often much easier and more relaxing to spend time with, for example, your dog than your neighbours (!). Dogs don’t answer back, you don’t doubt their love for you because they’ve said some nasty words, and they’re very good at communicating what they need when they need it. It takes much less energy to be around them, because the communication is so automatic, you don’t have to work hard at all. You can discipline them and show them your affection, but animals take most of your non-verbal cues to understand. It’s true, you can’t try and convince them that your opinion on the best brand of dog food is better than their opinion – and this really isn’t a bad thing is it? Let them think what they think; they’ve got to eat it. More complex forms of communication are not possible, but is that really a bad thing?
Imagine then applying this to human-human communication; only using language where absolutely necessary, as a last resort. Dictate what we use language for in a more conscious way, instead of letting language and our need to use it dictate our lives and relationships. Wouldn’t we all have much more energy? And enjoy each other’s company more? And if language wasn’t distracting us from our instinctual gifts, could we get better at reading other’s minds and moods? If we didn’t do so much small talk, didn’t create problems or revisit them, didn’t talk about other people we ‘have in common’, would we talk more about the ‘bigger things’? And start doing something to really help?
Is it because I engage in topics I don’t believe in? Silly inconsequential things, at least to me. But if they are important to those talking about them, then surely I am just being a kind person by engaging in that conversation. Then I come away feeling as though that time is wasted, even though I can be at home ‘achieving’ nothing, and not feel as though that time is wasted. It’s bizarre.
Or is it because the other party to the conversation is also not really interested in the small talk? That all people in the conversation want to stray on to topics they care deeply about, but daren’t, and instead stick to the ‘safe’ small talk. Maybe I am mistaken in thinking I’m an especially ‘deep’ person, because I always want to talk and think about the ‘big’ stuff and just skip past all the other surface noise – maybe everyone is really like that, but they don’t allow themselves to go there.
I guess the issue is you leave feeling as though you didn’t actually connect to anyone in that 2 hour long time spent together. And that really is a waste of time. It’s like you’re just paying lip service to spending time ‘with the in-laws’ or ‘with that other couple’ or ‘with your mum’, and so on the outside it looks as though job is done. That’s the point though isn’t it – the job is done, if the job is just a check box, but if you want to go deeper and really spend time with these people on a meaningful level, to connect with them, then you’ve only achieved the external goal – but it’s empty. It’s shallow.
Now I have begun to cut out a lot of the friendships I have that involve shallow box ticking as opposed to genuine connection. Where you smile at things that don't resonate and the deeper parts of yourself get no airtime, or worse, do, but are unwanted parties to the conversation. Should you really do that with your family though? Can you do it with your boyfriend’s friends? Are you supposed to just suck it up and spend valuable time in your life with people you don’t connect with, for the sake of a wider goal. What exactly is that wider goal? ‘Pretend’ to have a good relationship?
The more I delve into my spiritual side, the more I find how much of a reclusive person I am. The more I grow, I find there are so many people and conversations that I leave realising how much they drain me, or at least don’t grow me more. Is it my ego or my soul that wants to cut these people out of life? Not because I think badly of them, less of them, or don’t think they’re lovely people, but simply because we’re on different wavelengths.
There are a few people who I feel able to bare my soul to, and because it’s few and far between I often have plenty to say, and find myself talking far too much! Sharing the theories I have read to people with eager ears. I wonder though, if I had more of these people in my life, or even spent more time with them, would I run out of things to say to them too? Is it simply that language is over used? We create problems or at least turn them into bigger deals than they are so that we have something to talk about? Relive issues in the past, or create ones in the future, or lament over things in others people’s lives and how we don’t like them. If you remove all these things, what is there left to talk about?
Perhaps that’s why there’s talk of a new generation of crystal children, who are out-evolving language; or at least only using it as a last resort. They are said to be extremely efficient communicators, but rely much more on non-verbal communication and other forms of communication such as sign language. They don’t appear to value the ability to talk as highly. Often, language seems to be as much a part of the problem as the solution – it can be misunderstood, and we value the words being said higher than the non-verbal cues and the intent behind it. Communication via text or in newspapers is fantastic for certain topics like arranging a meeting or conveying cold hard information, but it is open to varying interpretations for ‘woolier’ information including opinions and feelings.
“I’d rather feel crap about the truth, than be made to feel better with a lie” Anon
Okay so Anon is actually me! I am very much a person who likes to know the truth, even when it hurts, hell, especially when it hurts. Because, as I also like to say - there is nothing personal about the truth”. There is something personal about lies, or cover ups though – it’s constructed and conscious rather than ‘just being’.
Language makes it so much easier to lie, to cover up, rather than tell the truth. If we relied on our basic instincts, tapped into people’s moods, and relied more heavily on non-verbal cues, we’d be much more aware of what’s really going on in a person’s mind or heart. Why do we allow ourselves to believe words to the contrary of all these primeval instincts and abilities? To retain our denial a little longer? Because the truth hurts? Of course all forms of communication can be manipulated, but I wondered if we would even have dreamed up ‘lying’ if we had never learned to speak. Do you see one deer lying to another deer? Does your cat hide its true emotions from you?
I know, we’re more evolved than animals, and I’m going off on a tangent. To bring it back though, I want to consider the fact that it is often much easier and more relaxing to spend time with, for example, your dog than your neighbours (!). Dogs don’t answer back, you don’t doubt their love for you because they’ve said some nasty words, and they’re very good at communicating what they need when they need it. It takes much less energy to be around them, because the communication is so automatic, you don’t have to work hard at all. You can discipline them and show them your affection, but animals take most of your non-verbal cues to understand. It’s true, you can’t try and convince them that your opinion on the best brand of dog food is better than their opinion – and this really isn’t a bad thing is it? Let them think what they think; they’ve got to eat it. More complex forms of communication are not possible, but is that really a bad thing?
Imagine then applying this to human-human communication; only using language where absolutely necessary, as a last resort. Dictate what we use language for in a more conscious way, instead of letting language and our need to use it dictate our lives and relationships. Wouldn’t we all have much more energy? And enjoy each other’s company more? And if language wasn’t distracting us from our instinctual gifts, could we get better at reading other’s minds and moods? If we didn’t do so much small talk, didn’t create problems or revisit them, didn’t talk about other people we ‘have in common’, would we talk more about the ‘bigger things’? And start doing something to really help?