Seeking solitude can be a serious mistake.
Ford Prefect, that alien from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse never quite understood earthlings’ peculiar “habit of continually stating and repeating the very, very obvious, as in ‘It’s a nice day,’ or ‘You’re very tall’.” He considers, then rejects the theory that human mouths seize up if not continually utilized. He finally concludes that if human beings “don’t keep on exercising their lips…their brains start working.”
That was how the late Douglas Adams expressed a common high-flown opinion about “empty chatter”: it is trivial, or perhaps worse, a substitute for real speech and thought. “Should we talk about the weather?” sings Michael Stipe of REM in “Pop Song 89.”
As a business consultant, I learned that plenty of managers—and execs held that view in spades, that is--until I educated them. Evidently my education worked rather well, because probably twenty-percent of my several hundred clients over the last 15 years of my business consulting wanted help in small talk. One CFO at a multi-billion-dollar firm hired me for only that purpose. His wife had told him on several occasions after cocktail parties that he needed to learn how to do small talk. She was right on. It took eight to ten sessions to learn how. I never quite got over laughing all the way to the bank over teaching a business person how to do small talk.
But I eventually realized my judgment was unfair. Until I got started in the pastorate in the 1960s, I didn’t know how to do it either. But I quickly realized in the very first year out of seminary that I’d be in deep-doo-doo without small talk. So, I eventually became an expert in the subject. In the 1960s no one had ever written about small talk. But today there are plenty of books on the supposedly inane subject of small talk, many of them quite inadequate. Inadequate because they are tone deaf to the subtexts of small talk.
Mistakenly seeking solitude
But from a different angle, one of the more thought-provoking studies on small talk (Mistakenly seeking solitude, Jl Experimental Psych, 2014) was carried out by Nicholas Epley (UChicago) and Juliana Schroeder (UCBerkeley). Their approach was not directed at the process (how-to) of small talk. Nor did they distinguish between empty talk and small talk. Rather, their research asked whether small talk, however defined, was of intrinsic psychological value—or, as Ford Perfect on the Hitchhikers Guide believed--a useless behavior.
Aristotle famously argued that we are by nature social animals. And evolutionary research in the 21st century not only confirms that conclusion, but enlarges it. Contrary to cognitive and behavioral psychology, we now know that the human is inherently social, that we could not exist outside of relations and that many of today’s diseases and dysfunctions are the result of inadequate and destructive relations in childhood. But people in the company of strangers often treat each other as anything but social animals. Instead of treating each other as possible sources of well-being, they ignore each other completely. The consequence is that we are often treated as objects rather than like human beings. So why would highly social animals ignore each other as strangers?
In the study, a third of the subjects had to strike up a conversation with a stranger on their Chicago commute. Two other groups were to stay silent, or, acting as a control, to behave as normal. In a series of nine experiments conducted on trains, buses, taxicabs and in a laboratory, people misunderstood the consequences of connection with strangers.
In the first two experiments on planes and buses the participants predicted that they would have a more positive commute if they sat in solitude rather than connecting with a stranger. But the research revealed the opposite: they had a more positive experience when they connected with a stranger than when they sat in solitude.
In another group of experiments, the participants predicted that sitting in solitude in a waiting room or taxi would be more productive, yet, once more, the opposite was found to be true.
A caveat: these results do not mean that social interaction is never distracting or even draining. But it does mean that the benefits that participants received from interacting with a stranger didn’t also bring along some easily imagined costs in productivity.
This brings up a major question from the study. If connecting with a stranger is so much more pleasant than sitting in solitude, why do people expect precisely the opposite? Part of the answer comes from the experiments. In order to have accurate beliefs about social reality, a person must be told directly or--learn indirectly from experiences. “Any barrier that keeps a person from learning from reality could create mistaken beliefs.”
I’m certain that this mental model, like many, can be very difficult to challenge and change. It’s only very recently that studies have been undertaken to figure out how to change mindsets. One-on-one input which I used to change mindsets that I met in coaching is very expensive. I learned that in working with clients I had to emphasize two or three different situations in which a changed mindset brought benefits. My experience from these episodes is that if I could focus on a growth mindset and emphasize its benefits from several angles and contrast that mindset with a fixed orientation, success was possible. Research confirms that permanent change is possible when at least two and preferably three or more contexts reinforce the value of a given change. That research was carried out with very bright MBA students, emphasizing the difficulty and potential for change.
In my three professions I was always dealing with mistaken beliefs. My rather disturbed family history was filled with mistaken beliefs. Fortunately, I began questioning these beliefs early in high school. Attending a significantly diverse suburban high school with students from poor as well as very well-to-do families, I somehow figured out that I did not want my family’s world of mistaken beliefs and so I became permanently curious about my own and others’ beliefs. The rewards I gained from rejecting many of these beliefs were often so large that I have a built-in bullshit detector. Just about any belief is fair game for analysis. I’ve made “noticing” a key behavioral priority. Sometimes the belief is unconscious and I stumble into the need for change. Other times, it’s interactions, mentoring and coaching, networking, scientific research--as in this study--or a conflict of some sort. But I remain very aware that there are a lot of barriers that keep us from learning reality and dealing with those mistaken beliefs. Two almost insurmountable barriers are lack of opportunity and outright fear of an alternative social reality. That could be lack of financial, social or educational opportunity as well as psychological fears developed in childhood and the past.
Still, other experiments from the study find that a significantly-shared belief is that people are just not interested in connecting. And that probably comes from behavioral norms. The authors suggest that in emergencies, where others are hesitating to act, the onlooker might just conclude that those onlookers are not concerned about connecting and helping. The authors conclude that those who follow the existing norms of isolation, even in emergencies, are exhibiting pluralistic ignorance, a social psych term referring to a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but go along with it because they assume, incorrectly, that most others accept it. To translate, "no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes".
I found the research especially important because it concluded that people could improve their own well-being—and that of others—by simply being more social with strangers. Because my profession of parish ministry expected outgoing, friendly, connection with strangers, I followed the rules of that ministerial turf. I came to enjoy the experiences and have a long history of unique episodes and insights from these many experiences. On one first-class plane ride, I sat down with a man in his late forties, and engaged him in small talk. A conversation developed. After about 10 minutes, I looked at him and commented, “You’re a Chicago grad, aren’t you?” He was shocked. He was both an undergrad and an MBA from the University of Chicago. Asking how I knew, I told him it was how he used language, the level of analysis and the use of certain terminology. (I’d never had a class at Chicago.) He took over the conversation for the next hour, asking question after question. Shortly before the plane landed, he asked what I’d had learned about him from the conversation. I detailed several unique strengths of his questioning. His last comment has stayed with me for years: “You have a very unusual and highly valuable competency.” I’d never thought about the competency that way. After a bit of marketing analysis, I was able to add that ability to my profile—and profit from it. We both got a lot out of a conversation that began with just empty talk that went on into a heavy conversation. The benefits were both personal and financial.
Moderators of mistakenly seeking solitude
The research demonstrated a consistent disconnect between the anticipated and the actual consequences of communicating with a stranger. True, whether bus, taxi, train or appointment. The researchers, however, suggested there were both likely and unlikely moderators of the interaction with strangers.
On the one hand, it makes sense that the frequency with which people actually connect with strangers in normal life should positively impact the frequency and provide more positive expectations about contact with strangers. The researchers suggested that those who regularly used taxis and regularly engaged the driver in conversation would tend to expect more positive responses. That’s direct learning.
In cultures or contexts where connecting with strangers is more actively discouraged, the researchers suggest that people will have a mistaken preference for solitude. Simply because they have failed to learn that their expectations are wrong. Think, for example, of children who were taught never to talk with strangers. Without direct learning that mental model is liable to stay in place as adults. It may be that these people do not so much have preference for solitude in the presence of strangers as they do for a fear that might result in connecting with strangers.
Though not mentioned in the research, the role of fear is often a significant barrier to engaging strangers in small talk. My professions put me in regular contact with those from nearly all social and economic contexts. Fear of engaging strangers, their anticipated responses and especially the questions the other might ask, keeps many from engaging in small talk beyond empty comments. A significant portion of people lack conversational skills. Research by Sherry Turkle at MIT suggests that this limitation is growing as a result of technology. That lack of conversational skills can readily impact even small talk.
This study joins a growing body of research finding that prosocial behavior brings positive consequences for oneself. That’s true whether it is spending money on others rather than oneself, behaving equitably rather than selfishly, or even expressing gratitude rather than disdain. The up-and-coming business person should realize that the networks so necessary for growth and one’s future can only be built on prosocial behavior toward others. That research, too, has been duplicated again and again. In sum, small talk with strangers offers many benefits of well-being for all of us and should not be ignored.