I recently read an article from The New York Times that spoke negatively of a practice we
as a society routinely engage in--small talk. It seems to be difficult for us be
comfortable with silence, and instead of talking about deep topics like the
state of the world or life's meaning, we talk about petty things that have no
real breadth or substance (e.g. Did you see American Idol last night?). Dr.
Matthias Mehl, a psychologist with the University of Arizona, has recently
published a study on the topic. He is quoted as saying, "By engaging in
meaningful conversations, we manage to impose meaning on an otherwise pretty
chaotic world, and interpersonally, as you find this meaning, you bond with
your interactive partner, and we know that interpersonal connection and
integration is a core fundamental foundation of happiness." The happiest
person in his study had twice as many substantive conversations, and only
one-third of the amount of small talk as the unhappiest. Could this be true, or
do we simply have deeper conversations with those that we have already
established deeper relationships with? Dr. Mehl suggests that we attempt to
have one substantive conversation a day for the next five days and see how
happy we feel. In what ways do you feel you can positively enhance your everyday
social exchanges?
Check out this site for a Guide to Having More Meaningful Conversations.
I think that this is a really interesting study. It would be interesting to try to have more meaningful conversations, but how do you transition into a meaningful conversation from small talk without sounding completely ridiculous?
The "Guide to Having More Meaningful Conversations" gives good tips, but doesn't address how to go from a normal "Wow, what great weather we are having" to something more substantial. In the tips the author suggests that to have more meaningful conversations, one has to be not only interesting but interested in what the other person is saying. This may be where the happiness comes from. If both people in the conversation are interested in what the other is saying they may be able to satisfy their needs for relatedness. The need for relatedness includes a component of responsiveness. That everyone wants to be involved in warm, interpersonal relationships where the other in genuinely interested in you and your needs. By having a more meaningful conversation, you are showing that you are interested in the other person on a deeper level, which my fulfill their need for relatedness and yours as well.
In addition Reeve (2009) also states that extraverts are generally happy. This may also play a role in the research that found that those who have deeper conversation tend to be happier. One component of extraversion is having a preference for and enjoyment of other people and social interactions. This may be a confound in the study because those who are extraverted would be more likely to engage in deep conversations. So it may be part of an individuals personality that connects having deep conversations to being happy.
Engaging in deep, meaningful conversations does help a person construct their self-concept but alone doesn't grant us immunity from sadness or distress. I believe that it's a stepping stone toward a clearer sense of what an individual believes and wants for his/herself in their life. For a person to have autonomy, they ought to know what decisions will increase their happiness. We read about this in Chapter 10 & I feel this article and blog post is most relevant to the concepts of this chapter. To so comfortably talk about issues like the meaning of life, religion and our deepest desires for our future is an extremely vulnerable position and should be viewed as risky. We spoke in one of our first class sessions that the event of risk taking is differently experienced cognitively by people. Some people feel no fear of jumping out of an airplane, racing down a snowy mountain on a pair of skis, or opening their hearts and minds to criticism while others are paralyzed by the thought of it.
This article encourages the vague links to happiness and doesn't explore the risks involved in speaking your mind, the only thing I would change about this article is to add that one mustn't spark a deep, intimate conversation with just anyone, but a trustworthy friend that will not break the confidence to express our thoughts, feelings and desires.
Great blog by the way, very, very interesting & relevant!
I like the premise behind this article. Personally, I feel as though this particular article, though filled with motived and positive intention, is primarily based on assumptions and guessing of facts.
The links that I provided lead to two separate psychological articles. One is about the need to council no only a cancer patient, but their spouses. Because the loss of understanding in their relationship may be detrimental to the cancer patients health. Because it may lead to loneliness, which in turn may lead to a lower survival rate. The second article discusses the increased potential for reported loneliness and depression for those who do not feel as though they have strong interpersonal relationships
Breast Cancer patients:
http://psycnet.apa.org.proxy.lib.uni.edu/journals/ccp/78/1/121.html
Connection between loneliness/depression and interpersonal relationships:
http://psycnet.apa.org.proxy.lib.uni.edu/journals/epp/15/1/3.html
I found both of the articles to be very interesting. However, Chapter 6 in our textbook really hit this topic well. When the book discusses the topic of relatedness it discusses the need for strong interpersonal relations. The book also discussed two characteristics that are necessary in a relationship. However, they are different from the article. The book says you need to know that the person cares about your welfare and also that you must know the person likes you. These are very different from the article, which say that you must have conversations that are not about you, as well as you must give trust to get trust. Though, I cannot disagree that these are both very important aspects of a relationship, I personally feel like the articles second criterion battles it's first. For example, in order to trust someone and be trusted in return there must be conversations about both people. In many conversations people will share experiences back and forth. I personally think that it is important to have conversations that involve both people in the relationships. Even though venting may be necessary, and may feel great while you are spilling your feelings, it is a very one sided aspect of relationships. And it is something that is, in the grand scheme of things, very shallow. However, the book states that when two people are able to converse and show their "authentic self" is when a relationship really benefits those who are involved. A relationship that "does not include caring, liking, accepting, and valuing does not satisfy the need for relatedness." Every type of relationship that you can think of, from marriage to co workers to friendships, if there is a sense of worth and acceptance felt from both sides about the other and themselves, that is when the relationship will be the healthiest. Healthy, not only in terms of the status of the relationship, but also in the physical and psychological benefit of the people involved.
This to me was really interesting. I have never been one to make small-talk, especially with co-workers I am not familiar with or customers when I am at work. Personally, I agree with the study the original poster cited that it is more beneficial to have more meaningful conversations about the world than simply chatting away about the latest football game or odd weather patterns.
The conversations I remember the most are the deep conversations I have had with my roommate. He and I would talk about the state of the world and the current economic climate. We would also discuss historical events. They were far more enjoyable and, for me at least, it is much more entertaining to engage in a spirited debate than just talk for the sake of talking.