The Big of Small talk

Communication, collaboration, innovation. Understanding, transparency, trust. Peace, love, unity. These are aspects of the world that the majority would like to promote and develop. They are words often spoken and heard but it seems increasingly difficult to experience.

In my years spent as a corporate trainer, each company and individual has been very interested in fully utilising their potential, expanding horizons and maximising returns. However, in some way, each has also been slowed by their culture, fearful of the new and boxed by the invisible walls of the familiar to lesser or greater degrees.

To understand how to break out of the cage, we have to understand that we are uncomfortable looking at it, we are unsure how to approach it and we are actually quite unwilling to even admit that there is a cage at all.

We find it difficult to entertain the idea that we may have learned incorrectly, what we know is an incomplete picture of the world or we may be downright wrong. And, if someone else brings it up, we feel judged, attacked, ostracised and are likely to go on the offensive to defend and excuse our positioning or discount the validity of statements made.

"Never discuss politics or religion" - a client.
This is the advice handed down from a father to son on conversation techniques and small talk. He went on to explain that this is to avoid argument, discomfort and lower the risk of giving offence.

This is common advice for small talk, isn't it? Politics, religion, death, sex, discrimination, finances and a few others should all be avoided. Instead, the weather, sports, hobbies, tv and the latest internet sensationalism are open for discussion.

Let's break down the advice a little:

Argument: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
Discomfort:slight pain or unease.
Risk: expose (something valued) to danger, harm, or loss.
Offence: annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself.

Now, this is what I see as a problem in the current world as even while people are persuaded not to talk about difficult topics, those that are attacked for offending the audience and, the audience is anyone who chances upon it. On top of this, people hold much less emotional control and on average, have less experience with a range of hardships and adversities. They feel justified in their action to stop people from talking about topics that cause discomfort and risk offence.

The issue is that the very topics that they are unwilling to talk about are the ones that are the most important to discuss, the ones where there is still argument and room to build understanding so as to improve the situation. Avoiding fears doesn't remove fear, it prolongs it by not addressing the circumstances that create it.

Social media has shone the light of discussion on many topics but, it has also created a space where people can build feeds of confirmation bias and, attack without risk of facing consequence of action. People have access to all kinds of discussions but, they rarely are willing or able to do the background work necessary to understand nuances and instead, react on headlines.

Factor in the relative ignorance of the masses on narrow topics that even though they are affected by them they do not understand them, the ability to get mass support of like minds who are looking to be a part of something easily and that mass having purchasing power interesting to advertisers, it is no wonder controversial discussions and those who have them are buried, censored or killed off on platforms.

I see discussion as a tool to be used to improve experience and if the discussion doesn't have improvement value, it is unlikely to be an enjoyable discussion. Enjoyable doesn't mean devoid of argument, discomfort, risk and potential for offence though. A say potential for offence because, offence even if intended, doesn't need to surface. Being offended by what someone says is always on the shoulders of who is offended, never the source.

Having said that though, people are so easily offended these days by anything that even comes close to being uncomfortable which I put down to the lack of real adversity many have faced in their lives. A lot of people in this world whether they recognize it or not, are in much better positions than those from a generation or two ago. Those who have faced real hardship generally have a much more even temper and, are more pragmatic and open to discussion, even of those that they disagree with.

What I find interesting is that when it comes to small talk with strangers or people who are relatively unfamiliar, the conversation need note avid difficult discussions if both people are open and have the skills to both discuss and, not take offence to conversation. Some of the best conversations I have had have been with relative strangers on all of the topics that are on the 'banned list'.

These have been the most important discussions I have had in my life as they have introduced me and likely them to perspectives that we have not considered prior because of the confirmation bias present in our engineered experience. One of the most damaging thing that is happening in this world currently is that there is less chance of random conversations with strangers as people tune out of the world and focus on a mobile screen.

Yes, there is opportunity online but this comes with a forum that changes the dynamic and takes a certain amount of control and honesty out of the equation. It is much easier to get involved in a screaming match online than face to face with a stranger on the bus. The safety of the screen interface tends to make people much more explosive but, this doesn't mean honest. Doubling down so as not to admit defeat is much easier online that offering concession in a personal discussion.

The screen dehumanizes the conversation and objectifies the participants as targets to aim for rather than people who have differing opinions. The conversations are often sidetracked and ad hominem attacks become the norm. Rather than a conversation aimed to improve understanding to be utilized to improve experience, it is a battle to prove one's superiority over another.

When this happens, improvement doesn't, just more conflict. And that conflict has now been supercharged by emotions unrestrained by the risk of exposure and therefore are allowed to run rampant justified by feelings to further polarize and separate groups. It is great for the beneficiaries who profit from segregation though.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
_{Posted with Steempress}