# Does anyone actually enjoy small talk?



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

A common complaint among INxx is small talk. Yet most people I know in real life don't actually enjoy it, so it hardly seems unique. Perhaps this is more about tolerance levels or practicality. 

SJs, do you care for small talk or no? *Eliminate or explain the stereotype*.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

I use small talk as a way to figure out what is their stream of consciousness when they are not trying to be philosophical or trying to be clever in a way that comes naturally to them.


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Correct, that is nothing unique. I am not biggest fan of small talk but i do not hate on it. 
ESFJs are the most accepting to small talk from what i have seen.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

I do not mind small-talk, as it can be particularly insightful depending on content even if intellectually uninteresting. I find "deep talk" too intimate, too complex, content heavy, too fast with random stranger(s) without a proper (small-talk) introduction. I classify 'small talk' as intellectually uninteresting or psychologically impersonal. It is only when it persists long-term in repetitious interactions or (demonstrably) in intellectual settings, do I find it tedious. And by "persists," I mean a week of frequent interaction. On another cue, there are specimens I particularly prefer and enjoy (only small-talking) with, because I have no interests in engaging them deeper. (e.g., co-workers).


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

There is no such thing as small talk. Only small people who measure conversation by its "depth". Imho. Interaction is just that. Conversation is just that. I enjoy talking about sports and I enjoy listening to lectures. It depends on the person. Only an idiot would expect to talk about the social implocations of Trudeau's weed policies with a cashier. There is different conversation. I find nothing big or small about different topics. 

Also, I never see anyone whinge about "small talk" anywhere but on PerC where being able to engage in deep thought is considered a cheap method of pretending to be an Intuitive. Not true for all. But very true for most. So many people come on here and say that they have all these deep thoughts and then you ask them for examples. Some just end up making really stupid statements with an incredible lack of "depth".

I've noticed those who genuinely disregard self-platitudes over their intelligence simply exhibit it. They don't talk about the lack of other's intelligence because they are ... Well intelligent lol. They frequently engage in conversation. They don't measure what is the level of conversation they're engaged in. 

Like what is "big talk"? How have you defined it? Why do think it's type associated? Let's have your thoughts on this. And don't get annoyed. I'm genuinely asking you. What is "big" talk vs "small" talk?


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Ask those who make those sites about introverts and make those introvert descriptions i guess. They bring more confusion than actually help honestly. A lot of those authors are INFPs and those descriptions are fitting INFPs .. they project their views as general introvert view.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Elwinz said:


> Ask those who make those sites about introverts and make those introvert descriptions i guess. They bring more confusion than actually help honestly. A lot of those authors are INFPs and those descriptions are fitting INFPs .. they project their views as general introvert view.


Some descriptions somewhere did go wrong. This is such a frequent topic of conversation on this site. One can say ... It's the small talk within typology circles. 

It's literally as common as asking about the weather.


----------



## InkMyUmbrella (May 23, 2017)

Small talk can (or can't) be an effective tool. A catalyst for further emotional connectivity with the person. A gateway into the depths of their inner-verse. 

It's also a fantastic conversation starter to hear some interesting stories from the other person, if they are so willing.

Can't because too much small talk that doesn't go anywhere bores the hell out of me, and I refuse much contact with said person.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Like what is "big talk"? How have you defined it? Why do think it's type associated? Let's have your thoughts on this. And don't get annoyed. I'm genuinely asking you. What is "big" talk vs "small" talk?


Lol. Small talk. But you knew this, of course.

Anyway, I don't hate it, that would require me to care. For that, you probably indeed have to look towards INFs. In fact, I generally find it odd to assign an emotional value to it, either way. I simply don't do it, without kicking up a fuss. Power of the factual > longwinded announcements.

And the reason is that, precisely as the wiki notes, "small talk is a bonding ritual and a strategy for managing interpersonal distance", and in not engaging, while still being in close physical proximity, I boost the distance to a couple of miles. That, in turn, ensures my peace and quiet, which produces win-wins all around. I'm content, and you don't have to deal with discontent-me.


If you want the stereotypical answer for INFs: The problem is more that apart from hating it, they simultaneously feel obliged to engage by a society where this is the norm. So the former isn't a problem on its own, but combined with the latter, it is -- but if you actually acted here, and resolved the issue by ignoring obligations, you would lose a wonderful opportunity to complain. So there you go. /stereotypes


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Northern Lights said:


> Lol. Small talk. But you knew this, of course.
> 
> Anyway, I don't hate it, that would require me to care. For that, you probably indeed have to look towards INFs. In fact, I generally find it odd to assign an emotional value to it, either way. I simply don't do it, without kicking up a fuss. Power of the factual > longwinded announcements.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with your thoughts. I expected the responses to be something I've read on site dozens of times before. Like I said, this conversation itself is typology forum small talk at this point because most likey all that could be said about it has been said. 

The thing I disagree with it is the dismissal of all small talk as useless because then it creates blindspots to potential growth. 

I also see a lot of people whine about not liking small talk but also not having people to talk to. Small talk is the gateway to more fulfilling conversation. Do you think anyone would randomly start engaging with "big talk" right off the bat? Why? Most topics of conversation require a certain degree of intimacy (which result in morr rewarding conversations) in order to build intimacy one needs to go through the initial steps required to get there. 

This is purely logical. 

If dislike for small talk and feeling like one is lacking deep connections are a concurrent complaint then that's basically like wanting to jump from the ground to the roof without using the stairs. It's completely impractical and ignorant of the solution that is both available and accessible. We all have to get out of our comfort zones to get what we want in life.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

I use it to interact with people and try to understand them. 
I dont like it and i dont dislike it either unless im supposed to keep it up for long.
Then ill either go deeper or break it completely.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

SirCanSir said:


> I use it to interact with people and try to understand them.
> I dont like it and i dont dislike it either unless im supposed to keep it up for long.
> Then ill either go deeper or break it completely.


People also confuse what's interesting to them as deep and assume the other person who just may not be interested in that topic to be lacking in depth. 

For example if some random dude starts talking to me about Chimpy's theory of Quantum Poop and I am not interested in Chimpy's theory of Quantum Poop then that doesn't mean I lack depth. It just means that I don't want to talk about Chimpy's Poop theory. 

But then again, if dude gives up on me after I refuse to engage with him over Chimpy's Poop theory, then he misses out on a potentially rewarding conversation or conversations about something else. 

Social interaction is a lot more complex than people think. Maybe that's way there are so many broken people these days. Have they really been socializing right? Is that even a question they ask themselves or do they just want everyone to talk about Chimpy's theory about Quantum Poop with the same enthusiasm as them?


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> People also confuse what's interesting to them as deep and assume the other person who just may not be interested in that topic to be lacking in depth.
> 
> For example if some random dude starts talking to me about Chimpy's theory of Quantum Poop and I am not interested in Chimpy's theory of Quantum Poop then that doesn't mean I lack depth. It just means that I don't want to talk about Chimpy's Poop theory.
> 
> ...


Well i usually find small talk something like general questions about your day, work, weather, clothes, football or anything that applies to anyone. And i only use that enough to go deeper and ask more personal things or opinions.
I know some people who stick with small talk though.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

SirCanSir said:


> Well i usually find small talk something like general questions about your day, work, weather, clothes, football or anything that applies to anyone. And i only use that enough to go deeper and ask more personal things or opinions.
> I know some people who stick with small talk though.


That's true. But does that mean those people are providing nothing of value and should be demeaned or ignored? Cuz usually when people look down upon small talk they are also looking down upon the individuals who prefer that mode of conversation. Not always of course. But that's been my general observation.


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Like what is "big talk"? How have you defined it? Why do think it's type associated? Let's have your thoughts on this. And don't get annoyed. I'm genuinely asking you. What is "big" talk vs "small" talk?


I'm not annoyed at all. There is a type of communication that really isn't helpful to anyone and should be placed in less than "big talk" box. Small talk I'd define as any interaction where you might be expected to engage with someone simply to offer an alternative to silence or to act as an elongated status update, but not necessarily to get to know them. 

For instance, where I go to church, everyone greets each other and responds in the same way. Not necessarily wrong in itself *if* it's a conversation opener, but many people there flit on for only a couple minutes and then take off to talk to someone else. It's like watching a square dance.

I don't consider it heavily type associated. This is just a common complaint in the N forums. Speaking for me, trying to figure out what to speak about when addressed, how, and why (with non-friends/immediate family) is a very confusing process and I usually realize more after the fact.


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> People also confuse what's interesting to them as deep and assume the other person who just may not be interested in that topic to be lacking in depth.
> 
> For example if some random dude starts talking to me about Chimpy's theory of Quantum Poop and I am not interested in Chimpy's theory of Quantum Poop then that doesn't mean I lack depth. It just means that I don't want to talk about Chimpy's Poop theory.
> 
> ...


WTH how do you not know about Chimpy's Quantum Poop?


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> I'm not annoyed at all. There is a type of communication that really isn't helpful to anyone and should be placed in less than "big talk" box. Small talk I'd define as any interaction where you might be expected to engage with someone simply to offer an alternative to silence or to act as an elongated status update, *but not necessarily to get to know them*.


Alright, that is pretty cool. Only one thing I would point out though .. One is basically talking about interaction for interaction sake, but if you notice there is an assignment of motive when you suggest the latter. Motive is something that will almost never be clear to us. I would like to know how you would determine what my motive if I just asked you about the weather? 



> For instance, where I go to church, everyone greets each other and responds in the same way. Not necessarily wrong in itself *if* it's a conversation opener, but many people there flit on for only a couple minutes and then take off to talk to someone else. It's like watching a square dance.


Oh yah .. Church type gatherings, parties etc are notoriously bad for in-depth conversation. But .. that's situational interaction. Does that suggest however that those people who are engaging with one another in that moment and situation would not engage with others in more in-depth conversation in a different environment? 



> I don't consider it heavily type associated. This is just a common complaint in the N forums. Speaking for me, trying to figure out what to speak about when addressed, how, and why (with non-friends/immediate family) is a very confusing process and I usually realize more after the fact.


I personally don't think that small talk vs big talk is type related at all. I think extroverts since their energy is derived from others will engage in it more than introverts and be less drained by general chit chat - but then that doesn't suggest to me that there isn't more there beyond it. A lot of times extroverts too will try to lead into a conversation with various starters so that they can segue into more deliberated and deeper conversation, but get met with someone who might have a preconcieved idea that "oh no, not again" and then just get that vibe and be put off so it just turns into a circle that doesn't get broken - for either that extrovert or that introvert.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> That's true. But does that mean those people are providing nothing of value and should be demeaned or ignored? Cuz usually when people look down upon small talk they are also looking down upon the individuals who prefer that mode of conversation. Not always of course. But that's been my general observation.


not really looking down upon them. I just prefer to be interested in the topic so i wont try hard to not ignore the conversation.


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Alright, that is pretty cool. Only one thing I would point out though .. One is basically talking about interaction for interaction sake, but if you notice there is an assignment of motive when you suggest the latter. *Motive is something that will almost never be clear to us*.


True.



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> I would like to know how you would determine what my motive if I just asked you about the weather?


If it's the same question every time I see you, I'd have to assume you are either too technologically illiterate to pickup a damn phone and check, or you genuinely want to know more about me but don't know enough to customize the question. If it's the very first time we've met, I don't know what to think...maybe you really want to know whether it's raining since I was just outside?



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Oh yah .. Church type gatherings, parties etc are notoriously bad for in-depth conversation. But .. that's situational interaction. Does that suggest however that those people who are engaging with one another in that moment and situation would not engage with others in more in-depth conversation in a different environment?


Certainly not, since most people I've met are self-professed small talk haters. I won't pretend that I act or talk very differently in those situations either, since where one person chooses to use the same fall-back questions, another doesn't even talk (hey, yeah, me). The problem is essentially the same for everyone: an overload of people and information to sort through in a limited period of time. 



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> I personally don't think that small talk vs big talk is type related at all. I think extroverts since their energy is derived from others will engage in it more than introverts and be less drained by general chit chat - but then that doesn't suggest to me that there isn't more there beyond it. A lot of times extroverts too will try to lead into a conversation with various starters so that they can segue into more deliberated and deeper conversation, but get met with someone who might have a preconcieved idea that "oh no, not again" and then just get that vibe and be put off so it just turns into a circle that doesn't get broken - for either that extrovert or that introvert.


That's a good point. Going off the overload of new information, extroverts seem to sort through it with a seemingly shallow dispersion of themselves (hey, how are you? Good, cool! Hey man, how's X working out? Everyone: Funny thing happened the other day...) While introverts struggle to choose sources to focus on, and end up far more inhibited/distracted since they're picking the direction to go.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> If it's the same question every time I see you, I'd have to assume you are either too technologically illiterate to pickup a damn phone and check, or you genuinely want to know more about me but don't know enough to customize the question. If it's the very first time we've met, I don't know what to think...maybe you really want to know whether it's raining since I was just outside?


Haha. Very fair. The other problem is, when an extrovert meets an introvert IRL, neither know the other's direction of thought. You would have to have a tag on your forehead that says Introvert for me to recognize that if I just made casual conversation with you, you would go through such inner turmoil so that I can avoid it :wink:



> Certainly not, since most people I've met are self-professed small talk haters. I won't pretend that I act or talk very differently in those situations either, since where one person chooses to use the same fall-back questions, another doesn't even talk (hey, yeah, me). The problem is essentially the same for everyone: an overload of people and information to sort through in a limited period of time.


Fair enough. But then it's a double whammy. I think I am starting to understand this push and pull of inferior feeling (I've noticed this from a LOT of individuals who have their feeling functions in the weaker areas), however, we go back to this idea that what is unknown is invisible and therefore cannot be extracted. The mind can only be provoked into externalization, but it cannot be hammered/broken down. It's a longer process but it's fair to remember that not everyone has the time or the inclination. 

I think I will admit that extroverts can be and are selfish in that they are energy leeches and demand that others provide them with their life blood even if the other person doesn't have it in them to give it to them. But then the problem is --- how do you know that you've come across someone who has limited energy?

What I've done personally is become much more reliant on the Sensation function that shows me the body language and other clues that indicate who has the energy and who doesn't. So I think we're coming down to determining that perhaps it is individuals who have their feeling functions in the dominant position which are probably the most likely to be leeches (I don't mean this in an offensive way) upon others.

Clearly understand the ESFJ vs INTP conflict here now. I have faced it similarly with ESFJ's as well, but not to that extent since my energy is still derived from external sources. 

Something like a Church gathering or a party would be an anathema for an IXTP type. Totally getting it now. 



> That's a good point. Going off the overload of new information, extroverts seem to sort through it with a seemingly shallow dispersion of themselves (hey, how are you? Good, cool! Hey man, how's X working out? Everyone: Funny thing happened the other day...) While introverts struggle to choose sources to focus on, and end up far more inhibited/distracted since they're picking the direction to go.


Got it. I think Fe types are more in-tune with feelings, but not as in tune with body language so they tend not to notice how draining their conversations can be for some. I will continue to work on my Sensation and be more observant of introverted types and their energy levels to keep growing


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Haha. Very fair. The other problem is, when an extrovert meets an introvert IRL, neither know the other's direction of thought. You would have to have a tag on your forehead that says Introvert for me to recognize that if I just made casual conversation with you, you would go through such inner turmoil so that I can avoid it :wink:


ooh, so something like this?










Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Fair enough. But then it's a double whammy. I think I am starting to understand this push and pull of inferior feeling (I've noticed this from a LOT of individuals who have their feeling functions in the weaker areas), however, we go back to this idea that what is unknown is invisible and therefore cannot be extracted. The mind can only be provoked into externalization, but it cannot be hammered/broken down. It's a longer process but it's fair to remember that not everyone has the time or the inclination.
> 
> I think I will admit that extroverts can be and are selfish in that they are energy leeches and demand that others provide them with their life blood even if the other person doesn't have it in them to give it to them. But then the problem is --- how do you know that you've come across someone who has limited energy?


LMAO. I wasn't expecting self-damning leeches. Oddly enough, I'd consider it just as selfish of an introvert to avoid social situations and not even trying playing the game, especially considering that an extrovert may intentionally dividing his/her time because of that "limited time or inclination." Regardless, doing anything because that's what you enjoy is going to be inherently selfish to some degree.



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> What I've done personally is become much more reliant on the Sensation function that shows me the body language and other clues that indicate who has the energy and who doesn't. So I think we're coming down to determining that perhaps it is individuals who have their feeling functions in the dominant position which are probably the most likely to be leeches (I don't mean this in an offensive way) upon others.
> 
> Clearly understand the ESFJ vs INTP conflict here now. I have faced it similarly with ESFJ's as well, but not to that extent since my energy is still derived from external sources.
> 
> Something like a Church gathering or a party would be an anathema for an IXTP type. Totally getting it now.


Very accurate so far. The ESFJ-INTP dynamic wasn't something I was even thinking about when I originally posted, as I largely chose this forum because SJs are stereotypically the most likely to initiate a conversation. But that's likely a key in where most of these conflicts in communication develop anyway.

I've mentioned before that small talk confuses me, and that I usually recognize what happened after the fact. It'd be no exaggeration to say that I'm chronically confused in most social situations, and part of that stems from me not paying a lot of attention to how the person in front of me is speaking and what their body language is saying. I mean, there have been countless times a friend has had to tell me someone had been flirting with me, or that so-and-so had intended to do x-thing. It's not until I'm at home and I replay those moments, does it then make sense.

So, the push-pull is real. I don't intend to be anti-social, I don't dislike everyone. I dislike small talk because I haven't quite figured it out yet. 



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Got it. I think Fe types are more in-tune with feelings, but not as in tune with body language so they tend not to notice how draining their conversations can be for some. I will continue to work on my Sensation and be more observant of introverted types and their energy levels to keep growing


Cool. Good conversation, thanks for engaging!


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Nah, sometimes I think small talk is like freestyle jazz music. There is no exact destination and we both simultaneously steer each other's wheel until someone stops or goes overboard to destination f*ck where everyone falls to their death.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> There is a type of communication that really isn't helpful to anyone [...] many people there flit on for only a couple minutes and then take off to talk to someone else. It's like watching a square dance.


Because that's basically exactly what it is?

And as it has that purpose, it's naturally also "helpful" for that purpose. Like I said -- a tool of social cohesion, used to bridge distance, to bond. Those people that talk to each other there reaffirm they are on "speaking terms", they (ideally) have no harmful intentions towards the other, they are bonding. Small talk is the glue of the social animals, if you want.

I agree it can be confusing, but not more so than anything else you don't really know about. Small talk is a skill, luckily; it can be learned, just like any other skill can. Sometimes I think people knew this better some 100 years ago. Not that I strictly want Victorian etiquette back, but it was very clear then that the art of polite conversation was a skill and hence taught as one. Today it seems you're still expected to make much the same conversation, but are to have learned it by yourself, some way or other.


----------



## Hollie Beth (Apr 15, 2018)

I don't like small talk. I also don't like working out or eating healthy, but sometimes things we dislike are necessary for a healthy life, unfortunately.


----------



## Daiz (Jan 4, 2017)

No.

It's been mentioned in this thread that there are no boring topics and you can have an interesting and enjoyable conversation about anything, if you want, no matter how shallow. This is true.

So "small talk", to me, is shallow conversation that one or both people are not really enjoying but still engaging in anyway. It's happening because someone's deemed it necessary, not because anyone enjoys it. It's like any other chore. 

If people enjoy small talk then it's not small talk anymore and it's just talk.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> A common complaint among INxx is small talk. Yet most people I know in real life don't actually enjoy it, so it hardly seems unique. Perhaps this is more about tolerance levels or practicality.
> 
> SJs, do you care for small talk or no? *Eliminate or explain the stereotype*.


I think so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk


----------



## Nichola (May 31, 2018)

I do not mind small-talk, as it can be particularly insightful depending on content even if intellectually uninteresting. I find "deep talk" too intimate, too complex, content heavy, too fast with random stranger(s) without a proper (small-talk) introduction. I classify 'small talk' as intellectually uninteresting or psychologically impersonal. It is only when it persists long-term in repetitious interactions or (demonstrably) in intellectual settings, do I find it tedious. And by "persists," I mean a week of frequent interaction. On another cue, there are specimens I particularly prefer and enjoy (only small-talking) with, because I have no interests in engaging them deeper. (e.g., co-workers).


----------



## rosemadder (Jul 18, 2018)

Definitely do not like small talk. I do not like talking with strangers, because I feel awkward. I don't know how to respond to people in a way that is just natural. I do participate in small talk when I have to, and then try to end it as quickly as possible. 

I do understand that small talk is necessary to get to know someone enough to have deeper conversations, but that doesn't mean that I enjoy it.


----------



## MountainView18 (Apr 26, 2018)

I try to avoid small talk simply because I'm not good at keeping the conversation going or choosing topics. I'd honestly much rather listen to someone tell a cool story. This is frustrating, though, because some people can take silence as boredom or disinterest in the other person, when I'm actually having a wonderful time with them. However, there's nothing better than a deep conversation with a good friend.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

I don't mind small talk in small doses. It's part of engaging with others and you cant just start off talking about politics or philosophy with others after saying hi. Small talk is needed to build up the relationship and get to the stage where you can talk about things in more detail. 

For instance, with a stranger, of they ask me what I did over the weekend I'd likely say, oh I had a date with my husband. If a friend asked, I'd probably go into more detail. I wouldn't tell a stranger what I ordered for dinner unless they asked or something, but I'd probably offer the detail on my own to someone closer. 

I have met a lot of people who just like to keep it simple. Honestly for like coworkers, I'm good with that. I don't want to share a ton of my personal life with them and I try to keep boundaries there. I also work with people who don't know what a boundary is and I know way too much. 

I'd also like to know how people avoid small talk. Do you just straight up ignore how was your weekend questions? I don't see how it's possible without it having a negative impact on your relationships. I suppose you could not care, but I tend to find that it's easier for everyone to not be awkward and ignore people wanting to engage with you.


----------



## MountainView18 (Apr 26, 2018)

Etherea said:


> I have met a lot of people who just like to keep it simple. Honestly for like coworkers, I'm good with that. I don't want to share a ton of my personal life with them and I try to keep boundaries there.


That's interesting to hear. Any reasons why? My coworkers are some of the people that I'm closest to right now given all of the time we spend together.



Etherea said:


> I'd also like to know how people avoid small talk. Do you just straight up ignore how was your weekend questions? I don't see how it's possible without it having a negative impact on your relationships. I suppose you could not care, but I tend to find that it's easier for everyone to not be awkward and ignore people wanting to engage with you.


Per my last post, I'm not good at this, but I guess my "avoidance" tactic is to try to ask questions. Get someone to start talking or telling a story and say things like "then what happened?". Simple statements that keep the spotlight on them. It's not deceptive or disingenuous; I truly want to talk to people, but communicating this way keeps me from having to wrack my brain for something mutually enjoyable to talk about, which looks awkward as heck sometimes, haha.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

While it is very typical for the INTJ to be in the business of dismissing small talk, I actually do think it can have practical uses. Many people naturally connect through the use of small talk. I know with my coworkers, they are (with a couple of exceptions) most comfortable with beginning conversations about important work items through small talk, so I would be doing myself a disservice by unconditionally refusing the practice.

With that said, I do not care much for idle chit-chat, and when I need to broach similar subjects I usually do not ask people about their weekends or vacations or whatever before getting down to business.


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Etherea said:


> I'd also like to know how people avoid small talk. Do you just straight up ignore how was your weekend questions? I don't see how it's possible without it having a negative impact on your relationships. I suppose you could not care, but I tend to find that it's easier for everyone to not be awkward and ignore people wanting to engage with you.


For the most part yes I ignore them. Especially if that was just standard weekend without any event. There are selective few coworkers i open up a bit more.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

small talk?


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

MountainView18 said:


> That's interesting to hear. Any reasons why? My coworkers are some of the people that I'm closest to right now given all of the time we spend together.


Professional distance is a thing. I'm not saying that I'm not close with some, but even those coworkers don't know everything about me. I'm also a manager, so I can't get too close with coworkers who aren't management. That gets too messy.



> Per my last post, I'm not good at this, but I guess my "avoidance" tactic is to try to ask questions. Get someone to start talking or telling a story and say things like "then what happened?". Simple statements that keep the spotlight on them. It's not deceptive or disingenuous; I truly want to talk to people, but communicating this way keeps me from having to wrack my brain for something mutually enjoyable to talk about, which looks awkward as heck sometimes, haha.


I'm not very good at starting conversations either. I'll usually start one by asking the other person about themselves or something along those lines.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Etherea said:


> I'm not very good at starting conversations either. I'll usually start one by asking the other person about themselves or something along those lines.


This I can't relate to. A lot of people say they're not good at starting a conversation (not just you) so I guess this is directed at others who feel the same way. 

Why? See... When I go into a conversation I'm not even worrying about what the other person may think about my ice breaker. You've seen me do this hundreds of times by now.

The way I see it, everythng is a conversation starter. From what the person is wearing, to the weather, to a local sporting event, to a recent popular movie. Is it really difficult to come up with something random like that to say?


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Yes, especially that often we don't care about those things.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Elwinz said:


> Yes, especially that often we don't care about those things.


I don't either. But you don't have to care about something to talk about it though? How do you get to talk about something you care about if you don't segue into it.


----------



## MountainView18 (Apr 26, 2018)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> worrying about what the other person may think about my ice breaker.


Bingo!


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> How do you get to talk about something you care about if you don't segue into it.


You start talking about what interests you :tongue2:

(I agree this is jarring for most people, however. But still, there is nothing preventing you from doing that -- those that will be put off are the ones you wouldn't want to talk to in the first place, so it usually works out perfectly.)

--

And no, it's not difficult, strictly speaking. I said this before, it's a skill, you can train it. You can even prepare entire conversation openings in advance, the very point of small talk is its formulaic nature, so naturally it can be pre-rendered. I've done that on the occasion -- picked out two, three suitable topics I could talk about with people that evening, with some openings and follow-ups ... it's not very different than preparing a presentation etc., in that sense.

The point, I guess, at least for me, is the effort. If it doesn't come naturally, that's the kind of work you have to invest, and my desire to do that is by default zero.


----------



## Akshida (Jul 21, 2018)

I think I probably would if I knew how to do it... people who are good at small talk used to terrify me but I've never had a chance to practise since I don't talk to a lot of people... 
Sometimes I've been silent when someone does small talk and I've been so confused at what they're saying like a foreign language. Always makes me question my iq


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Pre-determoned talk? What is this ... I get it lol and I'm not mocking it but that's such an unrelatable thing for me.

I only prepare a conversation if I'm giving a presentation at work or sales pitch. Even then during the meeting a lot of things come up that you can't prepare for so you have to judge it accordingly and switch gears on the fly if necessary.

I feel like my level of Extroversion is too damn high


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Pre-determoned talk? What is this ... I get it lol and I'm not mocking it but that's such an unrelatable thing for me.


Introvert < ISTJ < Me... For most introverts, speech output is typically thought through before mouth is engaged. ISTJs seem to be worse than the average introvert in this regard and, for me personally, it's worse again. I seem to be missing a link between thought and verbalization that always takes time and exhausting concentrated effort to overcome in spontaneous conversation. Everything I say is more or less assembled, proofread and rehearsed on a word-by-word basis. In casual small-talk conversations in social situations, this verbal "lag" means that topics usually change faster than I can prepare, review and engage my words to participate. Hell, I can type my thoughts faster than I can speak them (most of that is due to the proofreading part not needing to be done on first pass of typing but MUST be done in real-time first shot for verbal communications). This is also why I will NEVER use any voice-activated assistants... it's MUCH easier to type to them than to speak to them. 

I'm by no means a dumb person (well above average IQ, engineering degree, yada, yada, yada...), but this "deficiency" in real-time verbal engagement can be a real PITA sometimes... the likelihood of me being the instigator of small talk conversation is quite remote. Why would I want to do that to myself? Contrary to often expressed opinions, none of this has anything to do with confidence, shyness, social anxiety or anything else along those lines that people try to relate it to.

On the other hand, "deeper" topics that stay focused on something for an extended period are much easier to engage in... the "library" or "vocabulary" for that topic can stay loaded and is retrieved and utilized much more quickly and with much less effort.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Nichola said:


> I do not mind small-talk, as it can be particularly insightful depending on content even if intellectually uninteresting. I find "deep talk" too intimate, too complex, content heavy, too fast with random stranger(s) without a proper (small-talk) introduction. I classify 'small talk' as intellectually uninteresting or psychologically impersonal. It is only when it persists long-term in repetitious interactions or (demonstrably) in intellectual settings, do I find it tedious. And by "persists," I mean a week of frequent interaction. On another cue, there are specimens I particularly prefer and enjoy (only small-talking) with, because I have no interests in engaging them deeper. (e.g., co-workers).


_Bot-ing my post(?)_


* *






:smug:


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

jcal said:


> Introvert < ISTJ < Me... For most introverts, speech output is typically thought through before mouth is engaged. ISTJs seem to be worse than the average introvert in this regard and, for me personally, it's worse again. I seem to be missing a link between thought and verbalization that always takes time and exhausting concentrated effort to overcome in spontaneous conversation. Everything I say is more or less assembled, proofread and rehearsed on a word-by-word basis. In casual small-talk conversations in social situations, this verbal "lag" means that topics usually change faster than I can prepare, review and engage my words to participate. Hell, I can type my thoughts faster than I can speak them (most of that is due to the proofreading part not needing to be done on first pass of typing but MUST be done in real-time first shot for verbal communications). This is also why I will NEVER use any voice-activated assistants... it's MUCH easier to type to them than to speak to them.
> 
> I'm by no means a dumb person (well above average IQ, engineering degree, yada, yada, yada...), but this "deficiency" in real-time verbal engagement can be a real PITA sometimes... the likelihood of me being the instigator of small talk conversation is quite remote. Why would I want to do that to myself? Contrary to often expressed opinions, none of this has anything to do with confidence, shyness, social anxiety or anything else along those lines that people try to relate it to.
> 
> On the other hand, "deeper" topics that stay focused on something for an extended period are much easier to engage in... the "library" or "vocabulary" for that topic can stay loaded and is retrieved and utilized much more quickly and with much less effort.


On some random MBTI youtube channels they say that Si doms have great vocabulary and speak very fluent. The one with struggles according to them are Ni doms. But that's probably not type related?
I have slight lag, but not much. I never checked forUIQ but its definitely not above average.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

Elwinz said:


> On some random MBTI youtube channels they say that Si doms have great vocabulary and speak very fluent. The one with struggles according to them are Ni doms. But that's probably not type related?
> I have slight lag, but not much. I never checked forUIQ but its definitely not above average.


I have a good vocabulary (spent most of my childhood reading) and I would say I'm fairly articulate. However I think I communicate better through written word rather than spoken. I like written better because I have time to consider my words whereas when in a conversation, taking too much time will cause you to fall behind.

Edit: I also think I like to communicate through written means because I can fact check myself before I say something. I hate putting my foot in my mouth or looking dumb, though I attribute that to my enneagram more than my introversion.


----------



## Kaznos (May 3, 2018)

jcal said:


> Introvert < ISTJ < Me... For most introverts, speech output is typically thought through before mouth is engaged. ISTJs seem to be worse than the average introvert in this regard and, for me personally, it's worse again. I seem to be missing a link between thought and verbalization that always takes time and exhausting concentrated effort to overcome in spontaneous conversation. Everything I say is more or less assembled, proofread and rehearsed on a word-by-word basis. In casual small-talk conversations in social situations, this verbal "lag" means that topics usually change faster than I can prepare, review and engage my words to participate. Hell, I can type my thoughts faster than I can speak them (most of that is due to the proofreading part not needing to be done on first pass of typing but MUST be done in real-time first shot for verbal communications). This is also why I will NEVER use any voice-activated assistants... it's MUCH easier to type to them than to speak to them.
> 
> I'm by no means a dumb person (well above average IQ, engineering degree, yada, yada, yada...), but this "deficiency" in real-time verbal engagement can be a real PITA sometimes... the likelihood of me being the instigator of small talk conversation is quite remote. Why would I want to do that to myself? Contrary to often expressed opinions, none of this has anything to do with confidence, shyness, social anxiety or anything else along those lines that people try to relate it to.
> 
> On the other hand, "deeper" topics that stay focused on something for an extended period are much easier to engage in... the "library" or "vocabulary" for that topic can stay loaded and is retrieved and utilized much more quickly and with much less effort.


That's weird. I also lag verbally, and have difficulties converting my thoughts into words. Sometimes I see different ways of telling the same thing, but can't decide which one leads to the clearest explanation, and it's very confusing.


----------



## Sunshower127 (Mar 5, 2018)

My ISFJ/ESFJ mother is the queen of small talk. I love her but it gets tiring to hear every detail about her day and the weather this weekend, etc.


----------



## great_pudgy_owl (Apr 20, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Pre-determoned talk? What is this ... I get it lol and I'm not mocking it but that's such an unrelatable thing for me.
> 
> I only prepare a conversation if I'm giving a presentation at work or sales pitch. Even then during the meeting a lot of things come up that you can't prepare for so you have to judge it accordingly and switch gears on the fly if necessary.
> 
> I feel like my level of Extroversion is too damn high


I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me something I'm slow to respond. I'm mulling over the answer and though part of that time is spent choosing the best answer, part of is simply _*thinking of a word at all*_. Unless I really know a person, many of my answers come to me long after the topic has changed. 

It's like being stuck on a lag and then everything catches up at once. It's nice to practice a little ahead of time, to jog that frickin' word processor if nothing else.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

great_pudgy_owl said:


> I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me something I'm slow to respond. I'm mulling over the answer and though part of that time is spent choosing the best answer, part of is simply _*thinking of a word at all*_. Unless I really know a person, many of my answers come to me long after the topic has changed.
> 
> It's like being stuck on a lag and then everything catches up at once. It's nice to practice a little ahead of time, to jog that frickin' word processor if nothing else.


Pretty much confirms to me that I'm Pe and not at all Pi. I don't care about accuracy, or even truth when I'm in a low stakes conversation like a random chat with some stranger I'm never going to meet again. Caring about something like that is for high stakes conversations like sales pitches, meeting with clients, business prospecting, management etc. A low stakes conversation can be about anything I've observed about the other person or picked up while he's talking that I can relate to as a personal experience or something I've read a little bit about and I can talk about it for a little bit. 

For example, today at the gym an old dude was in my way as I was getting to my locker so I just said "excuse me sir, I need to get at my locker which is right next to yours" .. he started yapping and apologizing .. I was pulled out of my head (I go deep inside my head when I'm working out because the body is in a flow so I can think about everything in the world) ... To put him at ease since he started apologizing for being in my way I decided to ask him about a bandaid he was wearing and that conversation led to me talking about my brace, which led to discovering that he used to be a biker etc etc (so was I) and we spent 5 minutes talking about bike accidents, injuries etc while we changed and that was it. Then we said our goodbyes and that was it. I'll probably never see him again but we had a quick conversation and that's it.

I didn't need to prepare anything .. One thing just led to another and so on.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

For small talk, truth shouldn't get in the way of a good story, no. No one really cares if your holiday tale happened that way, because no one cares about your holiday tale. The point is entertaining, not relaying information. Still, even ignoring accuracy, the lag remains. Perceiving --> Thinking --> Replying isn't unconscious, it's a conscious effort and hence inefficient. If you had to think about how to ride a bike while riding a bike, you couldn't ride a bike. It's the same thing. And preparing parts of a conversation is one way out.

On the other hand, eventually, there will be knock-on effects, from the preparing. You learn, because the patterns stay the same. So I'm not sure I buy into "because extrovert, therefore able smalltaker" causality. Rather, I believe it works backwards -- introverts are what they are (also) because they talk less. But that means they simply never practice talking as much, and _that_ is why they are worse at quick conversations. All else being equal (which it never is, but you get the point), I'm sure it's entirely possible for everyone to become good at conversing. Because just like cycling, all it is is a skill -- which extroverts, by their nature, practice all day every day, hence the difference.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

There is a skill aspect to it but I think there's also the energy drain aspect of it which is probably the big reason. My mom's (INFJ) an engineer who worked consistently throughout her life. Where ultimately she finally found actual peace when she started writing books at home. She is a very good conversationalist but she simply cannot sustain it for as long as her own extroverted siblings (and they're all extroverts) ... Very loud extroverts at that.


----------



## kjdaniels (May 14, 2017)

I don't really enjoy small talk all that much. I might ask a few questions to try and establish some Fe rapport and see if we have anything in common. But I rather be talking about my interests or my life experiences.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> There is no such thing as small talk. Only small people who measure conversation by its "depth". Imho. Interaction is just that. Conversation is just that. I enjoy talking about sports and I enjoy listening to lectures. It depends on the person. Only an idiot would expect to talk about the social implocations of Trudeau's weed policies with a cashier. There is different conversation. I find nothing big or small about different topics.


I'm of the same mind. All conversations are pathways to somewhere. Conversations are only as boring as I choose to make them.


----------



## BlueRaspberry (Dec 19, 2017)

I do enjoy small talk. Often when I'm talking to someone, it's not because I'm super invested in the topic, I simply want to spend some time with them! Sometimes you just want to have a low-key social interaction, and, once you learn the basics of how to make small talk, it allows you to have an easy and pleasant conversation without taxing yourself or the other person. Deep conversations are awesome, but only at the right time and with trusted friends. It's kind of like how sometimes you want to cook a fancy 3-course meal, but other times you just want a bag of doritos, and both can be equally enjoyable depending on the circumstances.


----------

