What I Know
Have you ever been in a conversation with a friend or acquaintance and somewhere in the midst of this conversation realized that all you could talk about was yourself? I have — and simply by saying “I have,” I am guilty of the very scenario I just described. Humanity seems naturally self-centered, and because we think in terms relative to ourselves, the way we perceive the world and relate to others in the grand scheme of things is based on our beliefs, experiences, and prognostications. This is reflected in our conversations with others. When your friend tells you he is not feeling well, he is telling you about himself; and when you respond, “I hate being sick,” you are expressing compassion based on your own experiences. Consider how you may respond if you had never been sick. Would you say “I have never been sick”? “That doesn’t sound like fun”? “My [insert relative name] was sick recently”? Isn’t it interesting that we seem to respond instinctively by refocusing a conversation on ourselves or our experiences?
You may wonder the actual cause of this self-centered point-of-view. After all, is it because we are conditioned from childhood to think in terms relative to ourselves and our experiences, or is this a natural inclination, and if so, why? Personally, I believe that it is a combination of both, but primarily a natural inclination based on a shrouded factor: knowledge. If it were merely based on our ascension to adolescence and interaction with others who also express themselves self-centeredly, then the question becomes, where did these people with whom one interacts learn to express themselves self-centeredly? Such an explanation is merely a sociological spiral with unknown roots or basis. The reason must be more natural to humanity itself than some attained or learned trait.
This brings me back to my point about knowledge. The more convinced or informed a person is about a topic, the greater the extent he is (usually) willing and able to explain it. Have you ever wondered how a nerd can be the most awkward type of individual in conversation, until you ask him about the half-life of carbon and how it is used to ascertain an estimate of the age of natural materials? Suddenly your question has somehow breathed life into him, and he begins pouring a wealth of information upon your pitifully uneducated essence (all right, I admit I took it to the extreme on that one). Of course, this lack of self-centeredness is only vaguely interesting to you, which is why you are no longer interested in having a conversation now that he is actually talking, because it is not something that interests you (which is why you know little or nothing about it); this has the added negative effect of occasionally making said nerd appear arrogant, as if he is showing off. In actuality, he is attempting to express himself in terms of what he knows. Many people know nothing better than themselves or the experiences they have had, and because that is where their knowledge lies it is the focal point from which all their conversation stems. It is not a sociological phenomenon, it is not a learned adaptation; it is the result of where one’s knowledge lies. (Of course, you could argue further that the reason one’s knowledge lies in a specific area is due to his passion for that subject, as would be the case in the above nerd example, but that goes a little beyond the scope of this entry. But passion is attractive, even if you’re a nerd, provided you have a fashion-sense.)
Although this is not necessarily a bad aspect of human personality, it can be undesirable at times, especially when it occurs in excess. Besides the fact that it appears to be ubiquitous, we often can’t express ourselves in any way other than what we know. If we want to discuss a topic, focusing on that topic often swings right back around to how we have personally experienced or interacted with said topic. How can we prevent or to some degree suppress the frequency and severity of this type of behavior? Two ways to circumnavigate it are general terminology and abstract thinking. That may sound intimidating, but both are used quite commonly, and curiously enough, they are primarily used by those who are better at conversing in an interesting, engaging way.
General terminology is the approach to conversation where, rather than revolving around yourself, you generalize the topic and speak within that frame of reference. For example, if a friend of mine is telling me about Nicole Kidman and her performance in the recent remake of the classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I cannot relate directly because I do not know anything about the Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Nicole Kidman, but because I have sufficient knowledge with regard to movies in general, I can speak in general terms to continue the conversation and, of course, learn something new. My response may be something along the lines of a question related to the topic, “What other movies does she play in?” to get more information; or perhaps I have a statement I’d like to make, such as “Horror films are awesome,” a generalized statement about horror films. This is better than responding with something along the lines of “I don’t care for horror films” and putting yourself and your conversational partner in an awkward stalemate until another topic is derived. It is also acceptable to sway the topic slightly to something that either interests you more or that you have more knowledge about. For example, you might be interested in knowing more about the person you’re speaking with and developing a deeper friendship, so you might say, “Are horror films your favorite genre?” or ask how frequently your friend participates in movie-seeing adventures. Any of these are acceptable, but the key is not to respond with a statement to which your friend cannot relate (i.e., a statement about yourself).
The second technique I mentioned is abstract thinking. Abstract thinking is, more or less, the ability to pull related concepts out of thin air and use them in conversation. This demonstrates that, although you have little or no knowledge about the topic you are discussing, you can understand (based on context or other details) where your friend is coming from. This often turns out to be a simple analogy or comparison to something you can relate to, such as relating a horror film to a bad dream, without actually diving into the little details that separate the two. Abstract thinking may also encompass several other techniques, but the idea is that you are discussing concepts rather than specifics.
As in my other posts, I don’t by any means claim to have a copious amount of knowledge about sociology or psychology, but I do find it interesting and have consequently chosen to write about my observations in these areas. So if you have something to add, feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.