Advice Sought: unnecessary chatter

In My Humble Opinion
41

Triss, I certainly didn’t mean to come across as “cold”. Please keep in mind that I only meant the “signal-to-noise” as an analogy. Like most analogies, it both exaggerates and over-simplifies, for the purpose of making a point. I’ll try once more to elaborate a little bit, to try to clarify, before I give up.

I don’t truly mean that I would want only what I consider signal to be spoken. Even so, I do consider many social interactions – communications protocols, checking to see if someone’s listening, expressing feelings and looking for commiseration – to be signal as well. But the point I was making with the analogy, is that different people want different amounts of “blank space” in their communications.

I will attempt a different analogy. You’d think I would have learned by now, but, no. Think of decorating a room. There are two extremes a person could go to: leaving all the walls a pristine, blank white, nothing on the furniture; or, perhaps, covering every available square foot of wall space with paintings, photographs, artwork, wall sconces, and putting knick-knacks on every available horizontal surface. Few people like either of those extremes, though; and the precise balance one desires between them is largely an aesthetic decision. And just as one person wants a few, simple works with a lot of space on their walls, while another wants a lot of things to cover the same area, so to some people enjoy many words filling their air space, and others prefer far fewer. (But please, no hay on the walls.)

The only real point that I want to make is that people who prefer the latter are not “colder” or “less human” or “less social” than the others – they are just in a different position on the continuum of preferences, and I think allowances should be made to understand that.

I do agree wholeheartedly with you when you say:

I agree with this because you do make the distinction that it works both ways. Unfortunately, not everyone makes that distinction. My experience has been that it is far more common for chatty people to want quiet people to change than for quiet people to ask chatty people to change.

42

Dante, you crack me up. I’ll be looking for a time and a place to work that gag in. (And failing miserably, no doubt.)

I find it really interesting that the self-identified “quiet” posters such as Dante, Stuffy, and maggy (thanks for your comments!) seem to think I’ve expressed well what we’re thinking, but people that aren’t already there, don’t. It frustrates me that I can only get my point across to people who already agree with me. It also makes me wonder if the same thing is happening on the other side. Are people reading this and really gaining an understanding of people they didn’t understand before? I hope so.

I want you to know that I, at least, am trying. (Really. My wife tells me this quite often.)

By the way, you really do have to know whom you are communicating with. I’m thinking of Stuffy’s original scenario, and how it would play out in my house.

My wife: “I think I’ll wear a dress today.”
Me: “That’s not a bad idea, since we’re going to do _______ today.”
My wife: “WHAT? Did I ASK your opinion? Who do you think you are, telling me what to wear?”
Me: “Well, you commented…”
My wife: “I was just thinking out loud. Did it sound like a question?”

(Yes, the original quote was “where a dress”, but that would just get my wife and I into an argument about grammar.) Anyway, if our positions were reversed, the conversation might be much the same. But of course, we know each other, and we wouldn’t actually go here. And that’s the key. It’s not that any person making a statement about their clothing invites a comment. It’s about knowing the person you are with.

43

It’s entirely possible that I’m thinking waaay to hard about this thread.

I just want to point out that I think that CrazyCatLady’s points are different, and important. She really is transmitting vital information about plumbing and cat puke. When information like that gets transmitted, everyone (quiet and chatty people alike) needs to acknowledge it.

When the second spouse (2S) isn’t in the habit of acknowledging the first spouse (1S) when real information is imparted, then 1S isn’t going to be in the habit of repeating the information when 2S doesn’t hear it. And that’s a critical issue when you’re dealing with cat puke. There’s nothing idle about cat puke. (Amusing, perhaps; idle, no.)

44

No, actually, I still feel like we’re talking at cross purposes. I brought up small talk as being a separate category from the “no-response” thing. Small talk is having a whole content-free conversation with someone, usually in some kind of social (or quasi-social) situation: at a party, with a coworker, while waiting for a bus. I understand that you guys consider this a waste of oxygen and brain cells, and I’m okay with your refusing to partake in it.

I consider the kind of conversation we have suggested in the OP different from other small talk. Yes, it’s pretty much content-free, but it’s not necessarily a whole conversation – it’s a comment that’s actually along the lines of “I’m here, and you’re here, and I want us to pay attention to each other for a minute, let’s acknowledge that we’re together here.” Leaving aside the question about whether the other person “should” or “should not” make these comments – as others have observed, that’s a matter that the two people will need to negotiate – I see the issue as being: once the comment has been made, does it require a response? I say yes – for the reasons I’ve suggested in my other posts.

Hope this helps clarify where I’m coming from on this.

45

I disagree twickster I’m perfectly capable of engaging in contect free chit chat. What I want is, if you’re (in this case my wife) looking for acknowledgement, ask for acknowledgement. A content free statement leaves me to believe you’re talking to yourself, and threfore it doesn’t occur to me that I need to respond to it. I have no problem engaging in our mutual togetherness, but a content free message is a lousy way of communicating that desire.

Btw, so far my results in trying to change is going a little roughly. I seem to be concentrating and analying the message being communicated.

One good thing did come of this OP, however. My wife just joined up as a poster, I’ll let her introduce herself when she gets back.

46

Okay – thanks for the clarification, stuffy. I guess we were talking about two different things.

I look forward to meeting the lovely Ms. Stuffy and swapping content-free non sequiturs with her. :smiley:

47

Yeah, I can’t see saying something that inane and expecting it to launch a conversation or even require a response of any sort. That very obviously falls under the category of “thinking out loud” and is a character flaw on the part of the speaker.

“Should I wear a dress today?”
“Is it warm enough for a dress today?”
“Do I look fat in this dress?” etc.

All require a response. Valid responses to “I think I’ll wear a dress today…” are:

“I think ‘who cares?’”
“So what?”
“What’s your point?”
“This affects me how?”
“You’re talking to yourself again!”
“Shut up! For the love of god PLEASE SHUT UP!”

48

Oh, c’mon. A character flaw? A habit, a peculiarity, an annoyance even, but a character flaw?

Maybe this is the crux of this whole thing. One gets the feeling that those of few words consider themselves to be superior to the chatty folks. Unresponsiveness gives the impression of a lack of respect, or that at least some of the less-loquacious among us simply don’t deign to lower themselves to respond. That if something is said, it better damn well be worthy of response according to some vague, ever-shifting, arbitrary set of criteria.

Small wonder it causes arguments and hurt feelings.

49

Add me to the list of Quiet People who thinks you’ve expresesd this well! I’m very lucky that Mr. Del is also a Quiet Person (even more than I am), and we are very content in our Quiet Home.

I can definitely appreciate what some posters are saying about situations where one partner is quieter and the other is chattier. I absolutely agree that the quiet person, like Stuffy for example, might want to make more of an effort to respond to his wife’s statements in the way that she would prefer. Marriage and relationships are about compromise, aside from our shared Quietness Mr. Del and I have plenty of other issues upon which we work at compromising. I guess what feels odd to me is the lack of meeting halfway – some of the advice given to Stuffy seems more along the lines of Oh, it’s no big deal, how hard is it to say “Okay” or “That’s nice, dear” or whatever.

It is actually a little hard for someone who isn’t wired that way to begin with. Not hard like rocket science, but it’s certainly not effortless. It’s my impression, from some of my chattier friends, that it would be an effort for them to say, ride in a car with another person and not say ONE WORD for four hours. But Mr. Del and I do that a lot, we find it relaxing and enjoyable to simply sit in each other’s company. As an aside, the fact that we both have jobs where we have to talk a lot might be factor as to why we find this so restful.

If compromise is going to work, I think Mrs. Stuffy would also want to try to ask for responses rather than making statements. Not ALL the time, but SOME of the time. (Heh, another annoying solution might be for Stuffy to carry around a Jeopardy-type buzzer and say perkily "I’m sorry, Mrs. Stuffy, but that was not phrased in the form of a question.)

50

I hate it when people’s idea of being a good conversationalist is “listening.” It’s like you’re putting all the burden of maintaining the conversation on the other person. And then when the other person tries to do your job for you, what happens? You say they are “monologuing”.

Eugh. Blech. Learn to TALK. Not just grunt in appropriate places. And “yes/no” answers don’t cut it either. If you’re gonna talk to me, TALK to me, don’t act as if my chattering annoys you.

I mean, I would only not respond (or as you call it, “listen”), if I were annoyed by the person doing the talking severely, and wanted to get rid of him/her as soon as humanly possible.

51

Reminds me of a family guy episode, where peter spends a week or so narrating his own life.

“I walked into the kitchen and sat down at the table. I looked with a grimace at the questionable meal Lois had placed in front of me. Of course I’d never tell her how disgusted I was with her cooking, but somehow I think she knew. Lois had always been full of energy and life, but lately I had begun to grow more aware of her aging. The bright, exuberant eyes that I had fallen in love with were now beginning to grow dull and listless with the long fatigue of a weary life. [Lois knocks Peter unconscious.] I woke several hours later in a daze.”

52

I started reading this thread yesterday and wasn’t going to add anything but a day with my non-stop comment making husband made me realize a lot of different things.

It’s not only just about the one dress comment, it’s about the dress comment being the millionth comment of the day. If I want to get a drink of water I just go and do it. If my husband wants a drink it’s a five minute monologue of “I sure am thirsty”, “Water sure tastes good sometimes”, much loud gulping and sighing at the goodness of the water, “mmmmmm, that sure hit the spot”. Sheesh just drink the damn water and shut up already.

Every thought in his head has to come out of his mouth. Half the time he’s talking to himself and if I respond he gets annoyed, the other half he is talking to me and I don’t respond then he gets annoyed. If I respond too favorably he gets all excited that I’m talking and talks even more.

Crazy Cat Lady’s insight about some comments being questions is very true. Sometimes I know he’s telling me something for a reason but I can’t figure out what it is. If I ask what he really wants to know it makes things easier for both of us. If he said to me “I think I’ll wear a sweater to the party” He is probably asking if I think it’s appropriate for the occasion. If the comment maker can try to ask questions in the form of a question it does help both people.

Sometimes I think if he says one more thing I will explode. It gets so tiring.

53

Yes many people, I find most chatty people are completely unaware if the listener is actually interested in what they have to say.

My ex would talk to anyone and everyone and it was plainly obvious the majority of the time the person on the receiving end was not the slightest bit interested. He could not walk into a shop without engaging the person behind the counter for at least 10 mins. He was always the last to leave a party or the one the publican had to throw out the door at closing time. Once he even started talking to the toll collector at the airport car park (back in the days before it was automated), in the meantime there was a line of cars banking up behind us. He was totally unaware of the inconvenience he placed on others, as with most talkers it was all about him. In his mind I’m sure he is a popular witty bloke, but it just drove me absolutely nuts.

I don’t have to deal with this anymore, there are three of us in the household now and we are all much the same, so thankfully this is no longer a problem.

Maybe your chattering does annoy some people. Why should we learn to talk? Perhaps you could learn to talk less and listen more? It goes both ways.

54

“Alpha talker”; that’s great. A lot of talkers use conversation as a social dominance tool or weapon. Taking silence as arrogance or submissiveness is a problem on the talkers’ part; they’re working with no information and any conclusions reached are the results of their own pre(mis)conceptions.

For my part, I’m gifted with an impressive brow ridge which hoods my eyes and causes silly people to give me a lot of personal space. I’ve also mastered the noncomital “indeed” and made business cards listing rates for answering questions.

I do agree that the OP should aknowledge his wife and child. Our natual reticence shouldn’t interfere with established personal realtionships. Mrs. OP married him despite his quite nature and 'lil OP in a prisoner of biology.

55

That’s, of course, “quiet nature”. Sorry, I’m from Louisiana.