On the whole Greenspun's commenters agree with you, though they prefer to call him "rude" than "a dick", and none makes the connection to traditional sex-based divisions of social labor. I think this response is just right:
If you can't have a lame conversation with some frequency how do you get to the good ones?
And it's no accident that nine times out of ten, the people who disdain small talk are men.
I think this is probably true, but if someone asked for a cite, I couldn't supply one beyond my own limited experience. I summon Deborah Tannen. (Waves dead chicken.)
WhileiIt is often the case that men or women disdain smalltalk because it's work, it's also the case that we live in a culture that often appears to favor smalltalk over real conversation. Americans, in general, are less inclined to read newspapers, watch meaningful television news or otherwise hold out learning as lifetime process worthy of cultivation through social contact. Many foreigners find this frustrating, as do those Americans who don't share this otherwise common apathy for all information that is not easy to digest (i.e. requiring an accumulation of background information to understand) or whose primary purpose is not to entertain.
I will say this, however. At work, where the favored topics of conversation are the private lives of various celebrities, the conversation will sometimes defy the label 'small.' I'm awed by the amount of background information that my secretary, or various partners, can recall about Tom Cruise's personal relationships or the Olson Twins' eating habits. Passions have been known to flare on such occasions! Do such conversations qualify as 'small talk'?
And he overlooks the fact that it's entirely possible to feel superior to people while participating in small talk and to imagine that the quality of one's small talk clearly displays the infinite qualitative difference between oneself and one's conversation partners. To be so strong, so proud, that one can afford to waste time on small talk: that's the kind of transcendent arrogance anyone could admire.
How hard is it to say, "We met as undergrads fifteen years ago. You?"
Why on earth does this guy think he's so important that if he sums up a friendship quickly it will reverberate against the Mandate of Heaven and infect his relationships with a deadly flippant poison?
Americans, in general, are less inclined to read newspapers, watch meaningful television news or otherwise hold out learning as lifetime process worthy of cultivation through social contact. Many foreigners find this frustrating . . .
Um, I really don't buy this. I know it can feel true, but I would put that down to the fact that when one is in the US and meets "foreigners", one is usually talking about a small subset of foreign people, specifically the ones with the money and opportunities and inclination to travel and live abroad who are thus more likely to be worldly, knowledgeable, well-read, etc. (although actually probably the majority of "foreigners" in the US are engaged in menial labor).
And when one is travelling abroad, again there is often a similar selection process at work. But I can guarantee you that the States does not have anywhere near a monopoly on banal conversation, unengaged citizens, or lack of interest in anything difficult to digest.
When you're surrounded by Americans all the time, or just abroad on a holiday trip, it can certainly feel that way, but live in a foreign country for an extended period of time and you'll begin to notice that hey, there are idiots here too!
Oh and yeah, Greenspun is a dick, probably of long standing. In fact he is now most likely incapable of producing any conversation that would be interesting or significant against that background of dickitude.
Sherry, thanks for the link. Of course, I think he's not getting Heidegger, but don't disagree with him so much about banter, provided we make a distinction between competitive, one-upping banter, and the kind I think we engage in here. Evidence: in the kind of competitive banter people say they hate, you don't get a lot of "That was awesome!"--which you get pretty regularly here.
In Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" there's a minor character who refuses to engage in small talk and silently and grumpily reads the newspaper while the others are talking. His wife thinks he's just adorable that way.
My question is, where do you get a wife like that? My mom was that way about my dad, but she's in the fast-disappearing 90-year-old demographic.
Americans, in general, are less inclined to read newspapers, watch meaningful television news or otherwise hold out learning as lifetime process worthy of cultivation through social contact.
Eh. Perhaps we move in different circles, but I imagine that there are people in France and the UK that just like to talk about celebrities, fashion, and sports, too. An acquaintance of mine was surprised and disappointed when she traveled to London and discovered not sublimely interesting, hip people with a deep knowledge of politics and a love of good music, but people who [gasp!] talked about soccer while listening to cheesy pop.
JEmerson, is it small talk that bothers you, or gossip, or excessive amounts of chatter? (These seem to me to be different things.)
Well, it's OK to marry someone else's mother, at least in the US.
At best I like small talk, but most often end up in circles where the small talk is not very interesting and doesn't lead indirectly to anything interesting. A lot of people who hate small talk probably just haven't found their real community. However, there are a lot of very serious people (Wittgenstein was famous for it) who just can't stand it in any form. I'm sympathetic to his point of view, though by his standards I am a lightweight social butterfly.
I was told by a teacher around 1965 that my life would go better if I learned the superficialities of social interaction. I ran into him again around 1995 and he very tactfully got me to agree that he had been right.
Eh. Perhaps we move in different circles, but I imagine that there are people in France and the UK that just like to talk about celebrities, fashion, and sports, too. An acquaintance of mine was surprised and disappointed when she traveled to London and discovered not sublimely interesting, hip people with a deep knowledge of politics and a love of good music, but people who [gasp!] talked about soccer while listening to cheesy pop.
I agree that every country or culture probably has its fair share of people who dedicate substantial conversation time to topics like fashion, sports, etc... Nevertheless, my experience in Europe and Asia is that these topics are less likely to exhaust available topics of conversation. More often than not, I've found that people generally have an interest in what's going on, say, with their government (or ours).
As to the self-selection argument, it's worth pointing out that much of my anecdotal evidence is drawn from accounts of interactions with locals rather than other travellers.
I read a biography of Wittgenstein which said that he did like a playful sort of small talk. He couldn't stand inappropriate analogies. He got positively offended when someone said that she was sick as a dog. How could she know what it was like to be a sick dog? But otherwise, I believe that he was fond of movies and comic strips. He liked banter, I think.
It was a very good book, The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk.
As to the self-selection argument, it's worth pointing out that much of my anecdotal evidence is drawn from accounts of interactions with locals rather than other travellers.
Okay, but were you interacting in the local language, or in English? If the latter, there's that same selection process going on. Even in the local language, however, it's much more difficult to meet an "average" person in a foreign country than it is at home. Especially if you're only talking about travelling as opposed to living in Asia and Europe. Even if you live abroad for an extended period, it's still true that a local person being willing and able to talk to foreigners belongs to a select group.
I'm as quick as anybody to criticize American culture. It's just that I don't think the States has any special lock on shallowness.
I made a concious effort to learn how to make small talk in high school, as a part of determining I needed some social skills and going about acquiring them in the geekiest way ever. I found that just saying *whatever* popped in my head (within limits of moderate taste) made for interesting conversation. Which, at the start, consisted of this:
"How are you?" "Well, I can't think of any good topics for casual conversation, but otherwise I'm good."
Usually people could relate to that one, and we ended up having small talk about small talk.
Anyway, this method doesn't really make me seem 'normal', but seems to provide adequate social lubrication anyway. (snicker).
My guess is that anyone who went into a conversation with Wittgenstein under the impression that he liked small talk ran the risk of having his or her head taken off. This is not to say that W. never enjoyed small talk, but his standards were savagely high on absolutely everything, and he was not shy or tactful about expressing his judgements.
In this particular situation, there is a huge upside to Phil's response. After Phil's response, the person would no longer feel the need to waste time making small talk with an enormous pompous ass. This is Phil's way of signalling "Stay away! I'm conversational poison!"
IIRC, he hates to be called Phil. So, if you are a real masochist and actually want to start a conversation with Phil, you need to stick to a subject that interests him. I suggest something like, "Phillip, why are you so brilliant?"
I think it could be an interesting turn of this discussion to contemplate whether this is a variant of the hedgehog/fox issue. In a world which tend to value the hedgehog (someone with one big idea), is small talk (as a female skill) a skill of multitasking and therefore fox-like? John Roberts was remarked on for his good manners, and one of the tax professor blogs criticized him as an intellectual dilettante, a gadfly with too many interests?
Mostly though I'd love to see a discussion of the merits of the hedgehog versus the fox, and how foxes are supposed to make it in a world that seems designed for hedgehogs.
Usually hatred of small talk is its own punishment, but Greenspun does seem to have a lot of friends. I think he only wants to interact with certain type of person and isn't afraid of being an asshole to keep others at bay.
We just need to get rid of the perjorative aspect of the term "dilettante." Breadth of knowledge is a good in itself, not just depth. The problem tends to be that breadth of knowledge ges conflated with not having good quality control over the truth or falsity of your ideas because you're interested in too many things, but they're not really connected.
I would like to jump on the foreigners are stupid too pile. I had a boyfriend in Spain, a counterguy at an internet cafe--didn't particularly read or watch the news, no college, spoke some English but less than I did Spanish--though he was certainly not stupid not particularly sophisticated either. And still I had to hear from him how lazy and blinkered and uncosmopolitan Americans were (though not me). Though I feel kind of witless sometimes among the sparkling Unfogged commentariat, if there was to be a contest in nearly any dimension of education between me and him, I would have won handily. Yet still he felt some sort of claim to superiority on the basis of group membership in the European club. It was bogus.
Speaking of small talk, I've started trying to introduce, "what's your story?" as a replacement for "what do you do?" Then I have to simultaneously explain that I like "What's your story?" better because it leaves more room for self-selection of you defining aspect, which is an icebreaker in and of itself.
Re: 24. Also, it's not terribly surprising given the U.S.'s status as a superpower that a cursory knowledge with American affairs is more commonplace than, say, cursory knowledge of Belgian affairs. I'll agree that the U.S. news often covers fewer foreign affairs that aren't directly related to U.S. interests.
(Or, maybe it's just that when talking to an American, people tend to talk about American politics?)
There's also the fact that, when traveling in Europe, we're likely to meet people who are liberal, which makes us not so quickly notice that they might be stupid.
I certainly know that I can't really carry on meaningful ("sophisticated") conversations with relatives on either side of my family, from two different continents.
"Small talking" is a skill, and like all skills can be acquired if one is willing to work at it. It is also work to do it (as ogged points out), but usually well worth it.
But who is this dick Greenspun and why on earth would he refuse to answer a benign question from a beautiful woman?
One thing Europeans forget is the US is huge compared to their countries, so while my knowledge of Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas may seem parochial to them it is on the same scale as their knowledge of, say, France, Italy, Germany, and England.
Small talk is just a matter of etiquette. It's hard to be a conversational artist, but it's not too hard to learn how to ask people questions and listen to their answers.
A lot of the reason people perform poorly in making small talk, I think, is that they don't want to come off looking stupid, or they don't know how to ask probing questions. The trick is not just to ask someone what they do, that's just supposed to lead into more questions. I mean, either you know something about what the person does, and then you can talk about, or your don't, in which case you ask them questions about it. Everyone loves being asked questions about themselves, and stuff they know about. You need the "leader" questions (what do you do? where are you from?) and then move on into more probing questions (yes, yes, ATM), and that's when you make the transition into real conversation. The trick, though, through all this, is to either be a) genuinely interested in people b) really good at faking it.
Works for me.
And banter is awesome. I remember I met a guy at some law school function early on with whom the "small talk" was some really satisfying banter. Tragically, he had a girlfriend.
It's hard to be a conversational artist, but it's not too hard to learn how to ask people questions and listen to their answers.
That's why, if you don't like small talk but have to engage in it, it's important to take the position of questioner as early and often as possible. Then your role becomes the simple, low-risk one of seeming interested and nudging conversation along. Other benefits: since many people find themselves to a be a fascinating topic, they'll remember their conversation with you in a warm, rosy glow, and you may learn something while revealing little. Or, if the small talk is with someone you suspect is a dick, you're fairly safe - all they can do is show themselves to be, indeed, a dick, as happened in this case.
Internet geek from MIT has poor social skills? Huh.
This is a timely post for me bc I've been thinking about talking lately. For the short term, I expect to regularly be in the company of someone who makes exceedingly detailed small talk (e.g., '...then I took the 8:10 bus, which I got at stop x. Used to be you could just flag the bus down on Y Avenue, but that was 20 or more years ago, but now...' and on and on and on....). So it's got me thinking about how people interact conversationally.
Several folks have mentioned how small talk can be a learned skill. I had to learn it and found it key to, as some suggested, ask people questions, especially about themselves. Now it's fun. I also find non-threatening humor helps, especially at the library where I work.
Small talk is anything but. I found Greenspun's response especially pompous bc it implies that he knows what's interesting and what others find it interesting, perhaps bc if it's not interesting to him, it's just not interesting.
(I'm without the book, so possibly I'm committing a philistinism here, but...) Austen's Sense and Sensibility is not the only mention of small talk. At least in the Firth/Ehle filmed version, there's an exchange between Darcy and Elizabeth (at Rosings) specifically about the value and desirability of practicing one's small talk skills.
Anyone have a mention from, say, Beowulf, or Homer? Or from Homer Simpson?
And Lizzie makes precisely ogged's comeback -- telling Darcy that his lack of small talk skills is due to lack of practice, rather than any innate inability. (She compares it to her mediocre piano playing.)
42: There may be a discussion of small talk in Sense and Sensibility, but you're thinking of Pride and Prejudice.
Small talk with my Republican uncle is hard. He likes to talk about sports and (sometimes) politics, but he doesn't really seem to be interested in conversation or other people. My sister runs, and he likes to run. So, he'll talk about running, but he can't even pretend to be interested in her interest in acting.
I think he's kind of rude to his girlfriend in that way too.
I read something once by a third world statesman (Latin American or Middle Eastern) who said that economic development is hard to bring about in a nation where "an afternoon dedicated to idle conversation is regarded as well spent". {not literal quote}
So you see, hatred of small talk is progressive and pro-development.
44: Yes, I suppose my phrasing could be misread to imply that I thought Darcy and Elizabeth were having this conversation in Sense and Sensibility, but really, can you imagine the hoops Jane would have had to jump through to legitimately connect those two so-different plot lines and characters? Inconceivable. (By the way, isn't someone making a stage musical out of Princess Bride?)
47: Hmm. Obviously, *my* small talk skills need a little tuning. I'd hate to think a bit of mild irony could be construed as offense. Or it could just be this intarweb thing, where you can't see the body language or (referencing another thread) the timber of the voice.
What's really poignant about this little contretemps is that "How do you know our host/hostess?" is a question often recommended to socially unpracticed people as a conversational icebreaker. So it's probably not like he was brushing off some social butterfly; more likely he crushed some fragile geek whose antidepressants were just starting to kick in.
On the whole Greenspun's commenters agree with you, though they prefer to call him "rude" than "a dick", and none makes the connection to traditional sex-based divisions of social labor. I think this response is just right:
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 2:04 AM
And it's no accident that nine times out of ten, the people who disdain small talk are men.
I think this is probably true, but if someone asked for a cite, I couldn't supply one beyond my own limited experience. I summon Deborah Tannen. (Waves dead chicken.)
Hey, it worked once before.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 2:32 AM
WhileiIt is often the case that men or women disdain smalltalk because it's work, it's also the case that we live in a culture that often appears to favor smalltalk over real conversation. Americans, in general, are less inclined to read newspapers, watch meaningful television news or otherwise hold out learning as lifetime process worthy of cultivation through social contact. Many foreigners find this frustrating, as do those Americans who don't share this otherwise common apathy for all information that is not easy to digest (i.e. requiring an accumulation of background information to understand) or whose primary purpose is not to entertain.
I will say this, however. At work, where the favored topics of conversation are the private lives of various celebrities, the conversation will sometimes defy the label 'small.' I'm awed by the amount of background information that my secretary, or various partners, can recall about Tom Cruise's personal relationships or the Olson Twins' eating habits. Passions have been known to flare on such occasions! Do such conversations qualify as 'small talk'?
Posted by Kitty Darfour | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 5:45 AM
Sorry for the typos!
Posted by Kitty D | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 5:47 AM
And he overlooks the fact that it's entirely possible to feel superior to people while participating in small talk and to imagine that the quality of one's small talk clearly displays the infinite qualitative difference between oneself and one's conversation partners. To be so strong, so proud, that one can afford to waste time on small talk: that's the kind of transcendent arrogance anyone could admire.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 6:09 AM
How hard is it to say, "We met as undergrads fifteen years ago. You?"
Why on earth does this guy think he's so important that if he sums up a friendship quickly it will reverberate against the Mandate of Heaven and infect his relationships with a deadly flippant poison?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 6:35 AM
Well, it's good to see that you got over your irritation with this sort of post.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 6:45 AM
Sorry. That should have been, "It's WC that you got over your irritation with this sort of post."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 6:50 AM
I thought that Ogged's post went over the line into earnestness. Small talk is obviously something he's a bit fanatical about. Best not cross him.
I avoid meaningless small talk, engagaing only in serious conversations here and elsewhere.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:10 AM
Americans, in general, are less inclined to read newspapers, watch meaningful television news or otherwise hold out learning as lifetime process worthy of cultivation through social contact. Many foreigners find this frustrating . . .
Um, I really don't buy this. I know it can feel true, but I would put that down to the fact that when one is in the US and meets "foreigners", one is usually talking about a small subset of foreign people, specifically the ones with the money and opportunities and inclination to travel and live abroad who are thus more likely to be worldly, knowledgeable, well-read, etc. (although actually probably the majority of "foreigners" in the US are engaged in menial labor).
And when one is travelling abroad, again there is often a similar selection process at work. But I can guarantee you that the States does not have anywhere near a monopoly on banal conversation, unengaged citizens, or lack of interest in anything difficult to digest.
When you're surrounded by Americans all the time, or just abroad on a holiday trip, it can certainly feel that way, but live in a foreign country for an extended period of time and you'll begin to notice that hey, there are idiots here too!
Oh and yeah, Greenspun is a dick, probably of long standing. In fact he is now most likely incapable of producing any conversation that would be interesting or significant against that background of dickitude.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:11 AM
In social situations, "I want your speed" usually kick-starts the conversation.
Posted by bill | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:13 AM
David Weinberger wrote a good piece about small talk a while back. Here's the link:
http://www.hyperorg.com/backissues/joho-sep03-04.html#small
I expect you'd agree with most of this, ogged, with notable exception to where he comes down on banter.
Posted by Scheherazade | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:14 AM
I heartily endorse this post.
I told her that I refused to answer
Jesus, it's like a deposition or something. Way to make people feel at ease, Philip. I hate small talk, but only because I'm bad at it.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:22 AM
Sherry, thanks for the link. Of course, I think he's not getting Heidegger, but don't disagree with him so much about banter, provided we make a distinction between competitive, one-upping banter, and the kind I think we engage in here. Evidence: in the kind of competitive banter people say they hate, you don't get a lot of "That was awesome!"--which you get pretty regularly here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:23 AM
"I want your speed" usually kick-starts the conversation.
Especially if you hang out at meth labs a lot.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:27 AM
In Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" there's a minor character who refuses to engage in small talk and silently and grumpily reads the newspaper while the others are talking. His wife thinks he's just adorable that way.
My question is, where do you get a wife like that? My mom was that way about my dad, but she's in the fast-disappearing 90-year-old demographic.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:52 AM
My question is, where do you get a wife like that? My mom was that way about my dad, but she's in the fast-disappearing 90-year-old demographic.
Not to mention that it's both disgusting and probably illegal to marry your own mother.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:04 AM
Americans, in general, are less inclined to read newspapers, watch meaningful television news or otherwise hold out learning as lifetime process worthy of cultivation through social contact.
Eh. Perhaps we move in different circles, but I imagine that there are people in France and the UK that just like to talk about celebrities, fashion, and sports, too. An acquaintance of mine was surprised and disappointed when she traveled to London and discovered not sublimely interesting, hip people with a deep knowledge of politics and a love of good music, but people who [gasp!] talked about soccer while listening to cheesy pop.
JEmerson, is it small talk that bothers you, or gossip, or excessive amounts of chatter? (These seem to me to be different things.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:04 AM
Well, it's OK to marry someone else's mother, at least in the US.
At best I like small talk, but most often end up in circles where the small talk is not very interesting and doesn't lead indirectly to anything interesting. A lot of people who hate small talk probably just haven't found their real community. However, there are a lot of very serious people (Wittgenstein was famous for it) who just can't stand it in any form. I'm sympathetic to his point of view, though by his standards I am a lightweight social butterfly.
I was told by a teacher around 1965 that my life would go better if I learned the superficialities of social interaction. I ran into him again around 1995 and he very tactfully got me to agree that he had been right.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:15 AM
Eh. Perhaps we move in different circles, but I imagine that there are people in France and the UK that just like to talk about celebrities, fashion, and sports, too. An acquaintance of mine was surprised and disappointed when she traveled to London and discovered not sublimely interesting, hip people with a deep knowledge of politics and a love of good music, but people who [gasp!] talked about soccer while listening to cheesy pop.
I agree that every country or culture probably has its fair share of people who dedicate substantial conversation time to topics like fashion, sports, etc... Nevertheless, my experience in Europe and Asia is that these topics are less likely to exhaust available topics of conversation. More often than not, I've found that people generally have an interest in what's going on, say, with their government (or ours).
As to the self-selection argument, it's worth pointing out that much of my anecdotal evidence is drawn from accounts of interactions with locals rather than other travellers.
Posted by Kitty Darfour | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:26 AM
I think, like Labs, most folks who dislike small talk just aren't very good at it, and are aware of their inadequacies.
Surprising thing, that: not enjoying activities that you have no aptitude for.
This is my most banal comment ever.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:27 AM
I read a biography of Wittgenstein which said that he did like a playful sort of small talk. He couldn't stand inappropriate analogies. He got positively offended when someone said that she was sick as a dog. How could she know what it was like to be a sick dog? But otherwise, I believe that he was fond of movies and comic strips. He liked banter, I think.
It was a very good book, The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:28 AM
This is my most banal comment ever.
Surely not!
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:33 AM
As to the self-selection argument, it's worth pointing out that much of my anecdotal evidence is drawn from accounts of interactions with locals rather than other travellers.
Okay, but were you interacting in the local language, or in English? If the latter, there's that same selection process going on. Even in the local language, however, it's much more difficult to meet an "average" person in a foreign country than it is at home. Especially if you're only talking about travelling as opposed to living in Asia and Europe. Even if you live abroad for an extended period, it's still true that a local person being willing and able to talk to foreigners belongs to a select group.
I'm as quick as anybody to criticize American culture. It's just that I don't think the States has any special lock on shallowness.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:38 AM
I made a concious effort to learn how to make small talk in high school, as a part of determining I needed some social skills and going about acquiring them in the geekiest way ever. I found that just saying *whatever* popped in my head (within limits of moderate taste) made for interesting conversation. Which, at the start, consisted of this:
"How are you?" "Well, I can't think of any good topics for casual conversation, but otherwise I'm good."
Usually people could relate to that one, and we ended up having small talk about small talk.
Anyway, this method doesn't really make me seem 'normal', but seems to provide adequate social lubrication anyway. (snicker).
Posted by enigmania | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 8:42 AM
My guess is that anyone who went into a conversation with Wittgenstein under the impression that he liked small talk ran the risk of having his or her head taken off. This is not to say that W. never enjoyed small talk, but his standards were savagely high on absolutely everything, and he was not shy or tactful about expressing his judgements.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:18 AM
In this particular situation, there is a huge upside to Phil's response. After Phil's response, the person would no longer feel the need to waste time making small talk with an enormous pompous ass. This is Phil's way of signalling "Stay away! I'm conversational poison!"
IIRC, he hates to be called Phil. So, if you are a real masochist and actually want to start a conversation with Phil, you need to stick to a subject that interests him. I suggest something like, "Phillip, why are you so brilliant?"
Posted by Bleek | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:25 AM
I think it could be an interesting turn of this discussion to contemplate whether this is a variant of the hedgehog/fox issue. In a world which tend to value the hedgehog (someone with one big idea), is small talk (as a female skill) a skill of multitasking and therefore fox-like? John Roberts was remarked on for his good manners, and one of the tax professor blogs criticized him as an intellectual dilettante, a gadfly with too many interests?
Mostly though I'd love to see a discussion of the merits of the hedgehog versus the fox, and how foxes are supposed to make it in a world that seems designed for hedgehogs.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:33 AM
Usually hatred of small talk is its own punishment, but Greenspun does seem to have a lot of friends. I think he only wants to interact with certain type of person and isn't afraid of being an asshole to keep others at bay.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:37 AM
We just need to get rid of the perjorative aspect of the term "dilettante." Breadth of knowledge is a good in itself, not just depth. The problem tends to be that breadth of knowledge ges conflated with not having good quality control over the truth or falsity of your ideas because you're interested in too many things, but they're not really connected.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:41 AM
I remember seeing an interview with Duke Ellington in which he categorized himself as being among "those who aspire to be dilettantes."
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:51 AM
I would like to jump on the foreigners are stupid too pile. I had a boyfriend in Spain, a counterguy at an internet cafe--didn't particularly read or watch the news, no college, spoke some English but less than I did Spanish--though he was certainly not stupid not particularly sophisticated either. And still I had to hear from him how lazy and blinkered and uncosmopolitan Americans were (though not me). Though I feel kind of witless sometimes among the sparkling Unfogged commentariat, if there was to be a contest in nearly any dimension of education between me and him, I would have won handily. Yet still he felt some sort of claim to superiority on the basis of group membership in the European club. It was bogus.
Speaking of small talk, I've started trying to introduce, "what's your story?" as a replacement for "what do you do?" Then I have to simultaneously explain that I like "What's your story?" better because it leaves more room for self-selection of you defining aspect, which is an icebreaker in and of itself.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:53 AM
Re: 24. Also, it's not terribly surprising given the U.S.'s status as a superpower that a cursory knowledge with American affairs is more commonplace than, say, cursory knowledge of Belgian affairs. I'll agree that the U.S. news often covers fewer foreign affairs that aren't directly related to U.S. interests.
(Or, maybe it's just that when talking to an American, people tend to talk about American politics?)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 9:57 AM
There's also the fact that, when traveling in Europe, we're likely to meet people who are liberal, which makes us not so quickly notice that they might be stupid.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 10:02 AM
I certainly know that I can't really carry on meaningful ("sophisticated") conversations with relatives on either side of my family, from two different continents.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 10:20 AM
"Small talking" is a skill, and like all skills can be acquired if one is willing to work at it. It is also work to do it (as ogged points out), but usually well worth it.
But who is this dick Greenspun and why on earth would he refuse to answer a benign question from a beautiful woman?
One thing Europeans forget is the US is huge compared to their countries, so while my knowledge of Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas may seem parochial to them it is on the same scale as their knowledge of, say, France, Italy, Germany, and England.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 10:27 AM
Small talk is just a matter of etiquette. It's hard to be a conversational artist, but it's not too hard to learn how to ask people questions and listen to their answers.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 10:40 AM
A lot of the reason people perform poorly in making small talk, I think, is that they don't want to come off looking stupid, or they don't know how to ask probing questions. The trick is not just to ask someone what they do, that's just supposed to lead into more questions. I mean, either you know something about what the person does, and then you can talk about, or your don't, in which case you ask them questions about it. Everyone loves being asked questions about themselves, and stuff they know about. You need the "leader" questions (what do you do? where are you from?) and then move on into more probing questions (yes, yes, ATM), and that's when you make the transition into real conversation. The trick, though, through all this, is to either be a) genuinely interested in people b) really good at faking it.
Works for me.
And banter is awesome. I remember I met a guy at some law school function early on with whom the "small talk" was some really satisfying banter. Tragically, he had a girlfriend.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 10:53 AM
I do pretty well at small talk, but I'd be much better if I could insert hyperlinks into my conversations.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 11:11 AM
It's hard to be a conversational artist, but it's not too hard to learn how to ask people questions and listen to their answers.
That's why, if you don't like small talk but have to engage in it, it's important to take the position of questioner as early and often as possible. Then your role becomes the simple, low-risk one of seeming interested and nudging conversation along. Other benefits: since many people find themselves to a be a fascinating topic, they'll remember their conversation with you in a warm, rosy glow, and you may learn something while revealing little. Or, if the small talk is with someone you suspect is a dick, you're fairly safe - all they can do is show themselves to be, indeed, a dick, as happened in this case.
Internet geek from MIT has poor social skills? Huh.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 11:18 AM
This is a timely post for me bc I've been thinking about talking lately. For the short term, I expect to regularly be in the company of someone who makes exceedingly detailed small talk (e.g., '...then I took the 8:10 bus, which I got at stop x. Used to be you could just flag the bus down on Y Avenue, but that was 20 or more years ago, but now...' and on and on and on....). So it's got me thinking about how people interact conversationally.
Several folks have mentioned how small talk can be a learned skill. I had to learn it and found it key to, as some suggested, ask people questions, especially about themselves. Now it's fun. I also find non-threatening humor helps, especially at the library where I work.
Small talk is anything but. I found Greenspun's response especially pompous bc it implies that he knows what's interesting and what others find it interesting, perhaps bc if it's not interesting to him, it's just not interesting.
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 12:57 PM
(I'm without the book, so possibly I'm committing a philistinism here, but...) Austen's Sense and Sensibility is not the only mention of small talk. At least in the Firth/Ehle filmed version, there's an exchange between Darcy and Elizabeth (at Rosings) specifically about the value and desirability of practicing one's small talk skills.
Anyone have a mention from, say, Beowulf, or Homer? Or from Homer Simpson?
Posted by Fred the Fourth | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 3:28 PM
And Lizzie makes precisely ogged's comeback -- telling Darcy that his lack of small talk skills is due to lack of practice, rather than any innate inability. (She compares it to her mediocre piano playing.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 4:10 PM
42: There may be a discussion of small talk in Sense and Sensibility, but you're thinking of Pride and Prejudice.
Small talk with my Republican uncle is hard. He likes to talk about sports and (sometimes) politics, but he doesn't really seem to be interested in conversation or other people. My sister runs, and he likes to run. So, he'll talk about running, but he can't even pretend to be interested in her interest in acting.
I think he's kind of rude to his girlfriend in that way too.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 4:59 PM
I read something once by a third world statesman (Latin American or Middle Eastern) who said that economic development is hard to bring about in a nation where "an afternoon dedicated to idle conversation is regarded as well spent". {not literal quote}
So you see, hatred of small talk is progressive and pro-development.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 5:14 PM
43: Precisely.
44: Yes, I suppose my phrasing could be misread to imply that I thought Darcy and Elizabeth were having this conversation in Sense and Sensibility, but really, can you imagine the hoops Jane would have had to jump through to legitimately connect those two so-different plot lines and characters? Inconceivable. (By the way, isn't someone making a stage musical out of Princess Bride?)
Posted by Fred the Fourth | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 6:13 PM
F the 4th--Hope you weren't offended by my nitpickiness.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:08 PM
47: Hmm. Obviously, *my* small talk skills need a little tuning. I'd hate to think a bit of mild irony could be construed as offense. Or it could just be this intarweb thing, where you can't see the body language or (referencing another thread) the timber of the voice.
Posted by Fred the Fourth | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 7:22 PM
What's really poignant about this little contretemps is that "How do you know our host/hostess?" is a question often recommended to socially unpracticed people as a conversational icebreaker. So it's probably not like he was brushing off some social butterfly; more likely he crushed some fragile geek whose antidepressants were just starting to kick in.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 10-15-05 12:54 AM