Reacting to a typical “be a good listener” sort of advice column, he writes,
I would stress the basic point that most conversations are bad, so your proper goal is to make them worse (so they can end) rather than better.
He didn’t invoke Tyrone, so I figure Tyler owns this contrarian position.
I will say that if you take the “good listener” approach, you definitely will be considered a great conversationalist. Yes, you also will have difficulty escaping from bad conversations. But think of it this way: when you get around to writing your novel, you can mine some of those bad conversations for amusing and colorful material.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m not even sure what Tyler means by a “bad conversation” – one in which you won’t learn anything new about particle physics or pre-Vatican II Catholic theology? Sometimes you can learn more about the human condition from small talk than you can from a Dostoevskian monologue on the nature of Man and God – which, as you know if you’ve met the average human, has slim chances of being in any way insightful or original.
I’d also add that some of the worst conversations I’ve had were with people who conformed in some way to the suggestions in Cowen’s list. Conversation is a two-way street – why would I attempt to engage with someone on any topic other than the weather when they’re sullen, won’t make eye-contact, talk at random, and don’t listen? Why would I offer anything of value to someone who seems to have no interest in engaging with me beyond “what conversational value can I extract from this human resource as quickly and efficiently as I can”? It takes some conceit to think that being a dick is a good way to get someone to like you and open up to you. The misogynist boys of the alt-right would do well to learn that.
One last point: it’s extremely easy to get out of a bad conversation without being uncivil – which Cowen’s suggestions border on. Just say you need to use the restroom. If one has enough actual conversations with actual humans, it’s pretty easy to learn this lesson.
Who likes listening to your co-workers talk about their kids? Or a friend talk about a soccer game you really don’t care about? Or your wife talk about what her obnoxious co-workers did today? A great way to damage your relationships with those people is to tell them what you really think about their choice of conversation topics.
I view each of those “useless” conversations as investments. I listen to people talk about boring things that don’t interest me so that when the time comes they will listen to me about things that are important to me. If you don’t bank those little investments every day, you won’t be able to make a withdrawal in the future.
“”Most of all, try to establish a “we actually can have a more genuine conversation than we thought was going to be possible” level of understanding, taking whatever chances are needed to get to that higher level of discourse.””
You can be a stereotypical “good conversationalist” and still be ruthlessly practical about it. You just have to change the way you think about it. Instead of rolling into conversations with new people with a wrecking ball, you can make small deposits into the bank of “now it’s your turn to listen”. I find it’s much more effective for me, but your mileage may vary.
Hansonian take: most conversations are not about exchanging information, so decide what the purpose a particular conversation is and then tailor your actions accordingly.
Conversations (e.g., “With Tyler”) that will be made public or which are performative in any sense are especially weighed down by ulterior motives and constrained by the need to signal friendliness (or at least usefulness) and preserve the option of future access to prominent individuals.
Other factors are one’s value of time (Cowen’s is very high), one’s level of fame (Cowen’s is also very high, within a certain milieu), which means a lot of people will end up abusing a rare opportunity of access with trying to engage with you like fans or groupies for their own purposes, most of which will end up being big wastes of your own time. Someone in that situation can afford to be choosy, and indeed, can’t afford not to be, which means a lot of proactive termination.
In a sense this is similar to Arnold’s discussion of it being time to move on and switching jobs once one is no longer learning or developing in his or her current position.
That means a certain amount of “seeking challenge”, and in intellectual conversations, without a counterparty being able to engage at a high level with a spirit of civil adversarialism and constructive criticism, it’s also usually time to move on to someone else who will provide better value for your time. “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.”
I like Jordan Peterson on conversations, where he wants the conversation to be about Truth. Most of the truth about other people’s lives is somewhat boring to you, similarly your truths for them. Beer or wine helps; so do jokes (but I’m not so good).
Tyler:
do not use alcohol, not if you wish to learn something or maximize your powers of discrimination.
Usually what I want in a conversation is more comfort, and to leave the conversation with a good feeling about the other person, with them having a good feeling about me; and be interested and involved, both talking and listening, within the conversation.
There are many different reasons to have a “conversation”, and often many that are contradictory even within the same conversation (learning vs increasing friendship vs teaching). I suspect Tyler, in his own public “Conversations”, mostly follows the first 2 of the rules he claims are “mostly wrong”. The third Herra advice (c) is like Peterson, repeat what you’ve heard and follow up with questions, and Tyler does NOT do that. And Tyler (3), say what you notice you want to say, rejects Herra (d) don’t say what you notice you want to, Tyler thus also rejecting (e) bring it up later.
On the bringing it up later, most folk have many cases where they wanted to say something, but allowed the speaker to continue finishing the complex thought, and then they or somebody else said other things that led away from what the person wanted to say. I’ve been on both sides of that, often. I’d expect that Tyler also knows how rude it is to interrupt one complex flow, but how often the non-interruption of the moment means the point is not ever expressed.
(Steve Martin:) “Well, it must not have been very important or you wouldn’t have forgot”.
“Oh I remember now.
I’m radioactive”