Why do you converse?

[motorollin]

I have become interested in the reasons why people engage in superfluous conversation. I don't mean communicating with others with some intent, such as sharing or requesting information, rather "small-talk". This type of communication is unique to humans, and I'm interested in hearing about the reasons why people do it. I'm not specifically interested in what is actually discussed unless this is pertinent to the reasons for the conversation.

Discuss!

--
moto

[bloodline]

Social bonding... or perhaps comforting neotenous behaviour, as in children I expect small talk is part of "play" which develops the linguistic skills...

[motorollin]

I agree, but what purpose does it serve for *you*? Why do you choose to do it rather than doing something else?

--
moto

[bloodline]

motorollin wrote:
I agree, but what purpose does it serve for *you*? Why do you choose to do it rather than doing something else?

--
moto

Last Tuesday I went out for a drink with my old friend Lucy... we spoke of nothing important (well maybe some stuff, but mostly not), but the interaction was immensely pleasurable, since it serves to reinforce the bonding. As social animals, we would naturally enjoy social bonding... If it neotonous behavior then it would also provide pleasure, though of a different (comforting) kind.

[whabang]

I don't small-talk, unless it's with friends or family.
When strangers try to start a pointless conversation with me, they usually only manage to annoy me (yes, I'm single ;-)).

[bloodline]

whabang wrote:
I don't small-talk, unless it's with friends or family.
When strangers try to start a pointless conversation with me, they usually only manage to annoy me (yes, I'm single ;-)).

What if they spoke of Amiga?

[motorollin]

@bloodline
Sounds like what you're saying is that the act of conversing is intrinsically reinforcing, probably due to layers of social conditioning on top of childhood behaviours. Would that be about right?

--
moto

[bloodline]

motorollin wrote:
@bloodline
Sounds like what you're saying is that the act of conversing is intrinsically reinforcing,

Yes, I would say so. I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse. If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.

I enjoy talking with someone, it helps me feel closer to them... which staves off the intrinsic loneliness of life! It's is quite possible to enjoy someone's company without speaking, but then there are plenty of other interactions that people can do.

I am suggesting that small talk is what big brained apes do... where the smaller brained ones pick fleas off each other. It's just intellectual "social grooming".

probably due to layers of social conditioning on top of childhood behaviours. Would that be about right?

--
moto

Hmmm... it's hard to talk about conditioning here... since you would have to examine a child that has never had any human interaction. But yes, it's another possibility to suggest that it is just childish behaviour that is carried over into adulthood... since it causes no ill and may even be beneficial, there is no selective pressure to eliminate it

[motorollin]

bloodline wrote:
Yes, I would say so. I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse.

Pffft... sorry... must maintain some semblance if intellectualism...

bloodline wrote:
If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.

I agree. I really believe that language is the only thing which separates us from apes. Never mind opposable thumbs. With language, we can work out how to do without them.

bloodline wrote:
I enjoy talking with someone, it helps me feel closer to them... which staves off the intrinsic loneliness of life! It's is quite possible to enjoy someone's company without speaking, but then there are plenty of other interactions that people can do.

So you converse merely for the pleasure of it? What if there were some other behaviour available to you which was more rewarding? Would you do that instead?

bloodline wrote:
I am suggesting that small talk is what big brained apes do... where the smaller brained ones pick fleas off each other. It's just intellectual "social grooming".

Hmm, as a tool to select a suitable mate perhaps?

bloodline wrote:
Hmmm... it's hard to talk about conditioning here... since you would have to examine a child that has never had any human interaction.

Genie.
Would be interesting to see how she reacts to attempts at conversation now (she is still alive AFAIK).

--
moto

[Speelgoedmannetje]

We don't converse here in Groningen.
So, ehm, I don't know why you ppl converse? :-?

[bloodline]

motorollin wrote:

bloodline wrote:
Yes, I would say so. I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse.

Pffft... sorry... must maintain some semblance if intellectualism...

It was a carefully chosen word!

bloodline wrote:
If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.

I agree. I really believe that language is the only thing which separates us from apes. Never mind opposable thumbs. With language, we can work out how to do without them.

But it is hard to know if language might be dependent upon the evolution of opposable thumbs, for some reason  :-)

bloodline wrote:
I enjoy talking with someone, it helps me feel closer to them... which staves off the intrinsic loneliness of life! It's is quite possible to enjoy someone's company without speaking, but then there are plenty of other interactions that people can do.

So you converse merely for the pleasure of it? What if there were some other behaviour available to you which was more rewarding? Would you do that instead?

I can think of many behaviours more rewarding, but none are socially acceptable in many cases.

bloodline wrote:
I am suggesting that small talk is what big brained apes do... where the smaller brained ones pick fleas off each other. It's just intellectual "social grooming".

Hmm, as a tool to select a suitable mate perhaps?

Maybe that would go some way to explain my single status.

bloodline wrote:
Hmmm... it's hard to talk about conditioning here... since you would have to examine a child that has never had any human interaction.

Genie.
Would be interesting to see how she reacts to attempts at conversation now (she is still alive AFAIK).

--
moto

I think you may find answers if you wiki "pit of dispair" :-(

[cecilia]

I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse. If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.

sounds like the happy life of an artist!

messing about with paint or computers is very much like playing with faeces, so Im happy. I don't need to talk with anyone.

and, strangly, I never feel lonely.

[motorollin]

bloodline wrote:
But it is hard to know if language might be dependent upon the evolution of opposable thumbs, for some reason  :-)

Hmmm true. Thinking about that should keep me occupied for a while!

bloodline wrote:
I can think of many behaviours more rewarding, but none are socially acceptable in many cases.

So we converse at the expense of more pleasurable activities because we are constrained by society to do so...

bloodline wrote:
Maybe that would go some way to explain my single status.

I don't know - you seem quite articulate to me, so either you're an exception to the rule, or your theory doesn't work :-)

bloodline wrote:
I think you may find answers if you wiki "pit of dispair" :-(

I'm utterly speechless after reading that. Harlow should be posthumously discredited. Absolutely disgusting.

--
moto

[alenppc]

I think it's a way of finding friends. You start a small chat,  and try to say something you are interested in. If the other person shares what you think, then you go progressively from there...

If on the other hand you notice that the other person is totally unlike you, you just stop there, and there's no harm done. :-)

[whabang]

bloodline wrote:
What if they spoke of Amiga?

That would be a completely different matter, of course.