Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations(journals.sagepub.com)
journals.sagepub.com
Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672221104927
130 comments
Yes, people with diarrhea of the mouth make most conversations dry, one-sided, and very dull after you already know what that person's side of the story is. It's much worse if that side of the story is self-serving.
That is a good analogy with throwing a ball in the conversation. Imagine ball sports where only one person is participating. That's what a one-sided conversation feels like.
That is a good analogy with throwing a ball in the conversation. Imagine ball sports where only one person is participating. That's what a one-sided conversation feels like.
I find the most frustrating conversations are with people who can't stop talking and who fail to distinguish what is or isn't important information for other people in the conversation.
> How was your flight?
> Oh it was great, I sat next to a man named Joe Smoe, wait no I think his name was Joe Blow... no he said his name was Jim Blow... wait no his name was Jim Smoe... he said he was bus driver.. or was it a truck driver?...
How do you politely say "I'm never going to meet this man, and you'll never meet him again, so who cares what his name was? Get on with the story!" I know some people who can waffle around like this for 10 minutes easily, trying to remember a detail that nobody else could conceivably care about. By the time they remember the detail everybody else has already forgotten the rest of the story anyway.
> How was your flight?
> Oh it was great, I sat next to a man named Joe Smoe, wait no I think his name was Joe Blow... no he said his name was Jim Blow... wait no his name was Jim Smoe... he said he was bus driver.. or was it a truck driver?...
How do you politely say "I'm never going to meet this man, and you'll never meet him again, so who cares what his name was? Get on with the story!" I know some people who can waffle around like this for 10 minutes easily, trying to remember a detail that nobody else could conceivably care about. By the time they remember the detail everybody else has already forgotten the rest of the story anyway.
I say, “it’s okay, I’m not going to remember their name anyway.” Usually it gets them to move on.
Oh, so you’ve met my father-in-law?
> As with everything else, it seems, my anecdotal experience suggests a balance is usually the best overall answer.
And my anecdotal evidence says I want the three words person if I'm going fishing. And I want the verbal diarrhea as a wing man so I have an easy out if things get creepy or dull.
Maybe it's more about context than always meeting in the middle.
And my anecdotal evidence says I want the three words person if I'm going fishing. And I want the verbal diarrhea as a wing man so I have an easy out if things get creepy or dull.
Maybe it's more about context than always meeting in the middle.
Why not?
Since you got answered in downvotes I suspect the answer is "because people will switch languages on you"
I've recently seen many good and curious comments "answered in downvotes." Maybe I can't read the room, but why does that happen? Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?
"Why not?", by itself, isn't a great reply to a two-paragraph comment that said more than one thing. It took me quite a while to realize that it was in reply to the "[n]either are people who won't say more than three words at a time". Given how long it took me to get it, I suspect that others may have missed it because it was too subtle. If you missed that (like I initially did), it's a lousy reply - either low effort or badly said.
I think that HN has more zealots, propagandists, shills, and others arguing in bad faith than it did ten years ago. And I think that many of us have grown less patient with posts that clearly seem to be grinding axes, pushing agendas, or arguing rather than listening. (I think dang would say that we shouldn't be like that, but my patience has limits. I admit that as a weakness in myself, but there it is.)
I think that HN has more zealots, propagandists, shills, and others arguing in bad faith than it did ten years ago. And I think that many of us have grown less patient with posts that clearly seem to be grinding axes, pushing agendas, or arguing rather than listening. (I think dang would say that we shouldn't be like that, but my patience has limits. I admit that as a weakness in myself, but there it is.)
> Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?
Of course there is! For example the way you have worded your question. It makes it clear what you diagre with and stimulates a conversation.
At the moment the greyed out comment simply says “why not?”. I would love to answer their question too, but it is not even clear what exactly it is about? And then further more are they disagreeing or are they requesting clarification on the root causes of some detail? If they are disagreeing on what grounds are they disagreeing?
Of course there is! For example the way you have worded your question. It makes it clear what you diagre with and stimulates a conversation.
At the moment the greyed out comment simply says “why not?”. I would love to answer their question too, but it is not even clear what exactly it is about? And then further more are they disagreeing or are they requesting clarification on the root causes of some detail? If they are disagreeing on what grounds are they disagreeing?
I thought person was making a kind of lame joke, demonstrating why people who don't say more than three words are no fun to talk to (and hence downvoted)
I'm guilty of one worded replies that get downvoted. I do get annoyed since I'm basically poking the parent for an explanation.
But that's not a good way of doing it. A one-word reply rarely makes clear what needs more explanation, or even that that's what you're after.
On the other hand, a low-effort, drive-by unsupported claim doesn't necessarily deserve great effort and eloquence in a response. Maybe we should be better than them, but we also all have limited energy.
On the other hand, a low-effort, drive-by unsupported claim doesn't necessarily deserve great effort and eloquence in a response. Maybe we should be better than them, but we also all have limited energy.
That's just it and I do need to make a choice, have a thoughtful reply or ignore the statement.
Some of us are kind of dense. I did not reply to the "Why not?" reply because I could not decide if it was intentionally a question about one of the things I said, or if it was a tongue-in-cheek example of someone who only uses three words or less.
Pretend I am dense, and give me a better idea of what I didn't explain well enough, and I'm happy to oblige. Everything I say makes sense in my head but I don't always communicate it effectively.
Pretend I am dense, and give me a better idea of what I didn't explain well enough, and I'm happy to oblige. Everything I say makes sense in my head but I don't always communicate it effectively.
Did you reply to me saying why with why not or was that an example?
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
My prior comment doesn't seem downvoted.
My prior comment doesn't seem downvoted.
Right now it does look like it attracted one or two downvotes. I did not reply to you because I didn't understand what you were asking. I thought maybe you were just being cheeky with a 'not more than three words at a time' response.
That's curious, the score must have been bouncing around a lot via a lot of upvotes and downvotes.
I was being partially cheeky with the answer, though it was also partially genuine, i.e. why are conversations with either loud mouths or silent types unappealing?
I was being partially cheeky with the answer, though it was also partially genuine, i.e. why are conversations with either loud mouths or silent types unappealing?
I couldn't say. [I'm no fun to talk to either.]
"Contrary to people’s forecasts, they were more likable the more they spoke, and their partners formed global rather than differentiated impressions."
In my experience, reticence to talk is mostly about fear of saying something stupid, which generally happens when you don't have anything to say but your trying to say something. Assigning people to talk for abitrary portions of the conversation might just cause you to say more stupid things. So, this is indeed a surprising result.
In my experience, reticence to talk is mostly about fear of saying something stupid, which generally happens when you don't have anything to say but your trying to say something. Assigning people to talk for abitrary portions of the conversation might just cause you to say more stupid things. So, this is indeed a surprising result.
Your experience agrees with my experience of myself. Growing up I was the youngest child in our family friend group and particularly had an older sibling who basically bullied me - I learned to be reticent to speak and was definitely afraid of saying something stupid. When I got a little older (in high school) I eventually got curious about how so many of my peers seemed to converse easily without fear of saying anything stupid. Upon observation I realized that my peers said stupid stuff all the time and for the most part nobody cared. I think to some extent position in the social pecking order probably mattered more for how people would react to what someone said than specifically what they said.
I sometimes think about something similar while watching sitcoms - the characters will often say/do mean things to each other for a laugh and because everyone on the show reacts as though what was said was okay/normal it seems to barely register to me how mean it actually was.
I think growing up with a critical sibling lead to me developing a self-critical voice that I carried around with me so even if externally people didn't react poorly to something "stupid" I said, internally I provided myself that negative feedback that reinforced my fears/beliefs. I think the self-critical voice was protective when it developed - it helped me avoid the more painful external feedback from my sibling, but it continued on long after that was useful.
I sometimes think about something similar while watching sitcoms - the characters will often say/do mean things to each other for a laugh and because everyone on the show reacts as though what was said was okay/normal it seems to barely register to me how mean it actually was.
I think growing up with a critical sibling lead to me developing a self-critical voice that I carried around with me so even if externally people didn't react poorly to something "stupid" I said, internally I provided myself that negative feedback that reinforced my fears/beliefs. I think the self-critical voice was protective when it developed - it helped me avoid the more painful external feedback from my sibling, but it continued on long after that was useful.
Did this realization eventually help you get rid of that internal self-critical voice?
Yes, it's not gone but it has greatly improved. One of the challenges as far as that goes is that much of the time that sort of negative self-talk/belief happens below the verbal/conscious level for me so it's easy for it to be in effect without me realizing it. I've done a number of things over the years that have been helpful but therapy work the last couple of years has led to some notable shifts for me in that area.
Which is is when you can form
an opinion for someone. Will they say something stupid or offensive?
When people let their guard down is when you get a glimpse into them.
Which I guess is why alcohol and similar substances have been used for centuries.
When people let their guard down is when you get a glimpse into them.
Which I guess is why alcohol and similar substances have been used for centuries.
By letting your guard down I take that to mean revealing personal matters, weaknesses, fears, anything that makes you vulnerable.
Being offensive certainly gives me a glimpse into the person but not in a good way.
Being offensive certainly gives me a glimpse into the person but not in a good way.
Asking questions is a form of talking. If you’re afraid of saying something stupid, why not just admit that the topic is outside your knowledge, and ask questions about what they’re telling you?
I didn’t see the whole paper, but I wonder if the idea is really to be engaged in the conversation.
I didn’t see the whole paper, but I wonder if the idea is really to be engaged in the conversation.
An overview of the paper by the author: https://theconversation.com/people-think-they-should-talk-le...
Does it have the full text? It’s a good journal but there have been many methods problems in psychology research. It strikes me as a finding that would be very sensitive to sample issues and other potential confounds.
You were right on this one. The conclusions here seem... weak, on a number of different axes (participation pool = undergraduates, topics of discussion, conversations lasting 7 minutes only, seemingly small effect sizes).
This should be the title link.
One of the often repeated pearls of wisdom from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie, is people like to talk about themselves and they’ll like you more if you let them do that in a conversation. I’m paraphrasing. This research seems to counter that.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influ...
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influ...
> from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie
Implementing the advice in this book too literally makes for very inauthentic sounding conversation.
After reading this book, I found it easy to spot other people who had read it and were trying the techniques on me. For example, when someone uses my name 10 different times in a private conversation for no obvious reason, I have a good idea that they’re trying How To Win Friends techniques on me.
It also feels awkward when someone is trying to shape the conversation to meet some arbitrary goal, rather than having a natural and engaging conversation where both parties are actually interested in the topics being discussed. When someone is just asking me questions not because they’re interested but because they think getting me to talk about it will help them achieve some personal goal, it becomes obvious quickly.
Implementing the advice in this book too literally makes for very inauthentic sounding conversation.
After reading this book, I found it easy to spot other people who had read it and were trying the techniques on me. For example, when someone uses my name 10 different times in a private conversation for no obvious reason, I have a good idea that they’re trying How To Win Friends techniques on me.
It also feels awkward when someone is trying to shape the conversation to meet some arbitrary goal, rather than having a natural and engaging conversation where both parties are actually interested in the topics being discussed. When someone is just asking me questions not because they’re interested but because they think getting me to talk about it will help them achieve some personal goal, it becomes obvious quickly.
I've also experienced this and I've mentioned it in comments here in the past. I once recommended the book to a (former) colleague and it was maddening to talk to this person after they finished it. FWIW, I'm also always on edge when I talk to someone who I know has read the Rosenberg non-violent communication book(s), so it's not just the books or it's contents but a certain personality type, I guess.
Wouldn't the unnatural thing be a phase? Consciously practicing something is awkward almost by definition. But then hopefully you internalize it and become more natural and fluent in your application.
I'm sure that's true for some people. What's also true is that some people actively seek out ways to manipulate others and these 2 books in particular can be misconstrued as blueprints to achieve that end.
IMO the book itself addressed that point by suggesting that you try to find something to genuinely like about each person you engage with. The formulaic approach isn't meant to be the end goal, it's just a way to go from zero to some sort of common ground, from which a genuine connection can develop. It's really helpful for people who are totally inept at human conversation (like me) but it's just a starting place.
Nonviolent comms is similar... techniques for lowering people's defensiveness upfront and finding connection so that you can actually move forward with discussing the meat of the issue instead of being caught up in mutual dislike based on first impressions and preexisting biases.
Nonviolent comms is similar... techniques for lowering people's defensiveness upfront and finding connection so that you can actually move forward with discussing the meat of the issue instead of being caught up in mutual dislike based on first impressions and preexisting biases.
Dale's book is generic heuristics, hacks, and common sense advice mixed.
Nonviolent communication is more like cult/pseudoscience/horse manure mix.
Nonviolent communication is more like cult/pseudoscience/horse manure mix.
Maybe they're not for everyone, and I certainly don't think they should be followed literally to the T like a cookbook recipe.
But Dale's book helped me go from virtually no friends to having many treasured relationships in my life, across interests and divides that I never would've even bothered to have explore if not for that book. It made me receptive to actually getting to know people outside my interest groups, and was as illuminating as it was humbling. It was the book that helped me realize there was so much more to people than the tiny bubble I was in. What may be common advice was, to me at the time, completely unheard of to me. If your parents and social groups don't naturally teach you this stuff, and you're an introverted computer nerd, it's a whole lot better than nothing. Are there better books out there? I'd love to hear about them.
Nonviolent comms can definitely feel cult like and wishy-washy. But it's been tremendously helpful for me in engaging with people across ideological gaps (chasms these days). And it may have saved my life on occasions when conversations got especially heated and emotional and violence was a very real possibility. For all of its teletubby tendencies, in the real world, it is much more able to establish slash remind people of human connection than the bitter street protests we've seen over the past few years. Its underlying message is to simply seek common ground and work outwards from there to solve common problems, rather than digging further into ideological trenches and seeing everyone outside it as the enemy. That particular part isn't necessarily cultish. It's just really hard to practice in the heat of the moment, so the rest of the book is a bunch of deescalation techniques mixed with, yes, fluffy feel good stuff.
Shrug. Just my review as someone whose life and relationships were made much more enjoyable after those two books. Not because I can manipulate people (still can't and wouldn't even if I could), but because they opened ways of thinking and feeling about people that I didn't have before. Together they taught me way more respect and empathy for people outside of my own comfort, interest, and ideological zones.
But Dale's book helped me go from virtually no friends to having many treasured relationships in my life, across interests and divides that I never would've even bothered to have explore if not for that book. It made me receptive to actually getting to know people outside my interest groups, and was as illuminating as it was humbling. It was the book that helped me realize there was so much more to people than the tiny bubble I was in. What may be common advice was, to me at the time, completely unheard of to me. If your parents and social groups don't naturally teach you this stuff, and you're an introverted computer nerd, it's a whole lot better than nothing. Are there better books out there? I'd love to hear about them.
Nonviolent comms can definitely feel cult like and wishy-washy. But it's been tremendously helpful for me in engaging with people across ideological gaps (chasms these days). And it may have saved my life on occasions when conversations got especially heated and emotional and violence was a very real possibility. For all of its teletubby tendencies, in the real world, it is much more able to establish slash remind people of human connection than the bitter street protests we've seen over the past few years. Its underlying message is to simply seek common ground and work outwards from there to solve common problems, rather than digging further into ideological trenches and seeing everyone outside it as the enemy. That particular part isn't necessarily cultish. It's just really hard to practice in the heat of the moment, so the rest of the book is a bunch of deescalation techniques mixed with, yes, fluffy feel good stuff.
Shrug. Just my review as someone whose life and relationships were made much more enjoyable after those two books. Not because I can manipulate people (still can't and wouldn't even if I could), but because they opened ways of thinking and feeling about people that I didn't have before. Together they taught me way more respect and empathy for people outside of my own comfort, interest, and ideological zones.
You've put to words an intuition I've always had, but been unable to verbalize: it irritates me when someone converses with the intent to reach some end... or just enters a conversation with some notion or emotion that they're holding tight onto, and will not waver no matter what.
Worse are those people with canned lines and vocal inflections... the same ones on repeat over and over again; like they've built up a toolbox of sound bites to navigate them through all of life. It's unbelievably grating to hear.
It feels vulgar... to make one's presence and desires so known and obvious... instead of having a conversation for its own sake... for the sake of amusement or personal expression...
It's as if they're treating socialization as a constant string of business deals to be navigated... gross.
Worse are those people with canned lines and vocal inflections... the same ones on repeat over and over again; like they've built up a toolbox of sound bites to navigate them through all of life. It's unbelievably grating to hear.
It feels vulgar... to make one's presence and desires so known and obvious... instead of having a conversation for its own sake... for the sake of amusement or personal expression...
It's as if they're treating socialization as a constant string of business deals to be navigated... gross.
Using someone's name is also a good way to make sure you remember it, though. :(
To an extent, I agree with you. That said, protocols are also not a bad thing and socializing is almost certainly a learnable skill.
To an extent, I agree with you. That said, protocols are also not a bad thing and socializing is almost certainly a learnable skill.
To summarize the book in a line would be, "Pay attention to the other person." There is little formulaic approaches, mostly just advise to stop thinking of yourself throughout the conversation and give the other person attention.
Mentioning the other persons name is also a trick to remember it, perhaps that’s why they repeat it.
Was gonna say the same thing. I try to repeat the person’s name quite a bit so it can get drilled into my head…
I haven't read this book, but I do try to mention a person's name. Not because of them, but because otherwise I will have forgotten their name in 2 minutes.
it's the kind of book that make people want to game the metric rather than play, it's typical of this era IMO
I think it highly depends on with whom you are conversing. Extraverts, well, some of them probably could chit-chat with a telephone pole. After working myself out of elective mutism as a teen, I realized I had gotten very physically expressive as a kind of adaptation. As an adult, I invented a slightly cruel game wherein, should I get snagged by one of these kinds of extraverts, I wouldn't say any words, merely react with my face, gestures, postures, that kind of thing. Little nods. The idea was to see how long they would go on talking without any input from me.
Some were of the opinion that I was a good conversationalist, which I find darkly amusing.
Some were of the opinion that I was a good conversationalist, which I find darkly amusing.
I hadn’t thought of formalizing that little game; but I’ve definitely started counting that women can tell me their life story for 1.5hrs and sometimes 3hrs without me finishing much more than “I… I… So you…”.
It’s double-dark: It awakes misogyny in myself (“speaking 95% of the time shows how little importance they give others, and I want room in my relationship”), but it also shows that we have a lot of speech debt towards women (=everyone needs to speak, but not everyone gets their share”).
Your stance is refreshing. You judge everyone! I used to be timid, then went half-extrovert, so it’s encouraging to see there’s room ahead!
It’s double-dark: It awakes misogyny in myself (“speaking 95% of the time shows how little importance they give others, and I want room in my relationship”), but it also shows that we have a lot of speech debt towards women (=everyone needs to speak, but not everyone gets their share”).
Your stance is refreshing. You judge everyone! I used to be timid, then went half-extrovert, so it’s encouraging to see there’s room ahead!
I find the conversations can be awkward if you go too far in that direction. And it can feel like an interview. The best conversations are give and take where both sides talk almost an equal amount of time
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32542260: Good conversations have lots of doorknobs
Related article you might find interesting
Related article you might find interesting
Some of my most enjoyable conversations have been pretty uneven, where the subject is of mutual interest, but one person knows much more than the other. If my conversation partner knows way more than me about the subject, I want them to talk way more, and if I know way more, it's OK if the other person doesn't do 50% of the talking, but keeps inviting me to continue, or gently steers the conversation to areas of particular interest.
My own personal and very much anecdotal experience of this is that's a very American view of conversations; they like to talk about themselves, what they're doing, what they've just bought, their aspirations, etc, while Europeans (and especially Brits) would find such questioning to be bad form and even privacy invasive. Obviously exceptions exist on both sides, but speaking generally.
What would you suggest as a cultural guideline for an American conversing with a European or Brit?
Assume they are insecure and looking for a passive-aggressive way to cut you down to their level. The British^W English are quite adept at doing this in a way where you won't realize until the next day that they were insulting you.
Additionally, don't attempt to banter even if the Brit initiates it. Brits think that Americans cannot banter and will assume that any banter from an American is intended as a sincere insult. Don't try to explain that Americans frequently banter among each other and no offense is intended, they won't believe you.
It is better to remain cordial as they 'banter' at you, but to never reciprocate.
It is better to remain cordial as they 'banter' at you, but to never reciprocate.
Using advice like that as suggested conversational entry points is fine, but they're abjectly oversold as "rules." Repeated attempts to steer the conversation towards yourself or another person (even skillfully) will yield vastly different results in a b2b sales call with a bored MBA in NYC than at a working class football party in Morocco or a rushed business meeting in Japan or an introvert-heavy sci fi book club in Colombia. No set of rules replace EQ and social savvy when interfacing with different personalities, cultures, contexts, and even moods.
I believe the conversational meta has shifted in the last 80 years. But more than that, people like to talk about themselves IFF they feel safe and unjudged.
Agree that this seems to be true. Especially in white-collar / middle-class society, I suspect (no idea how to quantify this) that styles of conversation have dramatically changed and everyone has gotten much more polite and... docile? and, basically, unappealing.
Yeah, I think there is this unspoken assumption that the answer to this question does not depend on the specific cultural milieu, or the specifics of the context in which engagement occurs.
any recs on resources on latest "conversational meta"?
Most of it is garbage!! People talking about conversation, especially online, is total crap. It's all small blogs, and the ones who aren't trying to sell you something are this weird combination of unsure and self-inflated.
I agree with ajkjk, people have gotten safe and boring.
The only advice I have is to try more, and push the envelope over time. Social restrictions feel intense but yield to sustained (unintentional) effort. Most people are some combination of cowardly and egotistical as a default position. Be like flowing water. Negative consequences don't last if you don't feed them, and positive ones build and compound.
I agree with ajkjk, people have gotten safe and boring.
The only advice I have is to try more, and push the envelope over time. Social restrictions feel intense but yield to sustained (unintentional) effort. Most people are some combination of cowardly and egotistical as a default position. Be like flowing water. Negative consequences don't last if you don't feed them, and positive ones build and compound.
This is my Everyone Likes Dogs philosophy. If you meet someone and they tell you they like dogs, they have provided you essentially no new information. The status quo is that everyone, everywhere likes dogs. On the other hand, if someone tells you they hate dogs, now this is new information, that is suddenly quite interesting. How can you not like dogs? Did you have a bad experience? So on and so forth. A memorable tidbit about their personality which makes them less forgettable.
The trick is to find those social cracks where the contrarian viewpoint is interesting but does not make you a pariah. That is, even if you hate dogs, I would advise keeping that one to yourself.
The trick is to find those social cracks where the contrarian viewpoint is interesting but does not make you a pariah. That is, even if you hate dogs, I would advise keeping that one to yourself.
The only real meta is to treat everybody as an individual. Pay attention to how they react during different stages of the conversation and tailor your own behavior to make them more comfortable. Some people respond well to being asked about themselves. Other people become nervous and evasive. Pay attention to how they respond and react accordingly.
Besides that, there is no "one size fits all" approach. The only approach that works for everybody is to treat everybody like an individual with a unique personality.
Besides that, there is no "one size fits all" approach. The only approach that works for everybody is to treat everybody like an individual with a unique personality.
I talk with a few too many people who take the "let other people talk about themselves" rule as gospel. While it's nice to be given the spotlight, the point of a conversation is that it's an exchange, not a soliloquy. Conversations with people who listen a lot and don't give a lot back start to feel a bit uncomfortable as well.
Your conclusion about the research counter that is wrong. Here's a direct quote from the paper.
> High-question askers were liked more because they were perceived as more responsive to their partner, confirming Carnegie’s advice to focus on the other person in a conversation.
> High-question askers were liked more because they were perceived as more responsive to their partner, confirming Carnegie’s advice to focus on the other person in a conversation.
I only read the abstract because the rest of the article is behind a paywall. So I didn’t see this. However, it too, seems somewhat inconsistent with the idea put forth in the title and abstract. Perhaps the advice is: To be more likable, talk less, and focus your talking on lots of questions about the other person.
I think you could probably thread the needle on this, and say that both are correct. For example, if you talked a lot about things the other person had expressed interest in, and supported their own opinions, and made them feel like the conversation was "about" them even if you did most of the talking.
But, it's more likely that that's not the case, and the two are in conflict. Between the sources, I tend to think Carnegie is right, both because it's a strategy that has been working for long time, and because it accords with my own experience of the world, and because ... you know... a single social psychology research paper is sort of hard to credit when it conflicts with common sense.
But, it's more likely that that's not the case, and the two are in conflict. Between the sources, I tend to think Carnegie is right, both because it's a strategy that has been working for long time, and because it accords with my own experience of the world, and because ... you know... a single social psychology research paper is sort of hard to credit when it conflicts with common sense.
I've been unable to behave around people, a need not to harm their feelings, or maybe a fear of expressing my self (trauma based upbringing or something). This means I get locked in with verbal flooders regularly and they indeed seem to love having me around to spill their mind out.
Another pearl of his is to be "profuse in your praise". Even if it risks sounding empty or pure flattery, because it always leaves a good impression and works.
Profuse praise is so weird and off-putting to be a recipient of. I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe this was true however many years ago but it doesn't feel true all the time today.
The man who gave that advice also paired it with being authentic: "Give honest and sincere appreciation."
That advice was actually given in the context of a supervisor or superior working to improve a report: 'Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise.”'
So in context, its about noticing the things you as a person like about people and vocalizing them, and separately drawing attention to when someone improves. Pretty sound advice
If you read the actual book, its as much about not being a bore, and how not to piss people off. Some people take the advice in it WAY too far, and that's when it comes across as off-putting and inauthentic.
That advice was actually given in the context of a supervisor or superior working to improve a report: 'Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise.”'
So in context, its about noticing the things you as a person like about people and vocalizing them, and separately drawing attention to when someone improves. Pretty sound advice
If you read the actual book, its as much about not being a bore, and how not to piss people off. Some people take the advice in it WAY too far, and that's when it comes across as off-putting and inauthentic.
Nothing spikes my anxiety like when my supervisor out of nowhere starts to praise little things that don't matter (especially when the thing being praised is not new and has not changed).
Because you know they took the compliment sandwich advice to heart, and the other shoe is about to drop.
Because you know they took the compliment sandwich advice to heart, and the other shoe is about to drop.
I’ve apparently been doing this for a long time without noticing. I just like telling people that appreciate them or reminding them that they’re doing well, etc!
Had no idea it had a name or “strategy” associated with it… I just like other people to know when they’re having a positive impact on me (or something else). And people always seem to like knowing that, and get into a better mood in response!
Edit: maybe I’m not understanding the concept very well, and “profuse praise” the strategy is more belligerent than I thought
Had no idea it had a name or “strategy” associated with it… I just like other people to know when they’re having a positive impact on me (or something else). And people always seem to like knowing that, and get into a better mood in response!
Edit: maybe I’m not understanding the concept very well, and “profuse praise” the strategy is more belligerent than I thought
You'd be surprised.
Also, if you are of the personality type/disposition that this doesn't work on, don't underestimate the huge percentage of people on which it does work.
Also, if you are of the personality type/disposition that this doesn't work on, don't underestimate the huge percentage of people on which it does work.
It needs to be subtle. So maybe "profuse" is the wrong word.
For example, throwing in phrases like "with your experience, you would know that..." or "that thing you said was hilarious" make people feel good, hopefully while also being true. This is a huge part of likeability.
For example, throwing in phrases like "with your experience, you would know that..." or "that thing you said was hilarious" make people feel good, hopefully while also being true. This is a huge part of likeability.
Yeah genuine praise is just ok, habitual or forced praise is the worst.
I wonder if this works because true-ringing praise has to be about the particular person, and the production of it demonstrates that you're paying (sole) attention to them, and the attention is what causes them to enjoy the interaction, not necessarily the praise itself. If so, "active listening" might produce the same results.
I mean, i suspect its because true ringing praise doesn't come with strings. Inauthentic praise is often used as a strategy to manipulate someone into doing what you want.
Honestly people who do this make me super uncomfortable.
Dale Carnegie already had a well established reputation when he allowed the others to speak about themselves. Apples and oranges if you are not already famous.
It's not about the others knowing who you are or your reputation, and thus not needing to establish that if you're already famous, etc.
The insight is rather that others could not give less fucks if they knew about you more, what they like is to talk about themselves.
This is true even if you're totally non famous and unknown to them, like a random taxi driver and you. They still like to talk about themselves over hearing about you.
The insight is rather that others could not give less fucks if they knew about you more, what they like is to talk about themselves.
This is true even if you're totally non famous and unknown to them, like a random taxi driver and you. They still like to talk about themselves over hearing about you.
It IS about your reputation. Peoples’ motivations are selfish. They want to be perceived as higher status and are constantly assessing “what’s in it for me” through their personal frame of reference.
Having someone they perceive to be influential, powerful etc. listen to them spill their guts about themselves means a lot more than if they explained their worldview to a homeless person on the street. They wouldn’t shut up about the former experience at a dinner party, but wouldn’t even engage with the latter!
The point is, if your reputation does not already proceed you, talking more about yourself (assuming you aren’t a dolt) increases your perceived social value with a stranger. If your reputation is good and proceeds you already, listening more matters.
Having someone they perceive to be influential, powerful etc. listen to them spill their guts about themselves means a lot more than if they explained their worldview to a homeless person on the street. They wouldn’t shut up about the former experience at a dinner party, but wouldn’t even engage with the latter!
The point is, if your reputation does not already proceed you, talking more about yourself (assuming you aren’t a dolt) increases your perceived social value with a stranger. If your reputation is good and proceeds you already, listening more matters.
To be clear... this study is ONLY about an initial TWELVE MINUTES of conversation with a STRANGER.
And so the idea that "the more you talk, the more someone will like you" should be extrapolated to e.g. an entire two-hour first date, or to existing relationships at home or at work or with friends, would obviously be nonsense.
It certainly is an interesting finding, and easy to understand in retrospect -- people can decide to like you and find you more interesting if they've heard you speak for 8.4 minutes as opposed to 3.6 minutes.
But I wouldn't take this as any kind of generalized advice about "how much to talk in conversations", as the title suggests. The title is, frankly, a horrifying example of taking a small interesting finding and falsely suggesting it's much more broadly applicable.
And so the idea that "the more you talk, the more someone will like you" should be extrapolated to e.g. an entire two-hour first date, or to existing relationships at home or at work or with friends, would obviously be nonsense.
It certainly is an interesting finding, and easy to understand in retrospect -- people can decide to like you and find you more interesting if they've heard you speak for 8.4 minutes as opposed to 3.6 minutes.
But I wouldn't take this as any kind of generalized advice about "how much to talk in conversations", as the title suggests. The title is, frankly, a horrifying example of taking a small interesting finding and falsely suggesting it's much more broadly applicable.
Right. But it would be more fun for everyone here to conclude from one headline that they should now talk 95% of the time, not to ask any questions of the other person, and even cut them off for bonus like points. +500 social XP!
Just a side note, something I've been using lately to monitor how much I talk in meetings is something called Read.ai - https://www.read.ai/
There's a bunch of other neat features, but monitoring talk time is what I use the most. It works in real-time as a bot on Google meet and Zoom (the two platforms I use). I believe it should work on other video platforms as well. Just sign up and it'll start joining meetings on your calendar (if you provide it access).
Instead of using the idea everyone should have equal talk time. It depends on a meeting type. For instance, in meetings with clients or during interviews, I want to let them out talk me. "Tell me about yourself", etc. Obviously during presentations I would like to talk more, etc.
Even in this study they are targeting only one particular conversation type. It seems obvious if you try to be the most relatable and interesting, people will favor you... But that's not every conversation. That wouldn't be the case if we're all engineers trying to build a bridge.
There's a bunch of other neat features, but monitoring talk time is what I use the most. It works in real-time as a bot on Google meet and Zoom (the two platforms I use). I believe it should work on other video platforms as well. Just sign up and it'll start joining meetings on your calendar (if you provide it access).
Instead of using the idea everyone should have equal talk time. It depends on a meeting type. For instance, in meetings with clients or during interviews, I want to let them out talk me. "Tell me about yourself", etc. Obviously during presentations I would like to talk more, etc.
Even in this study they are targeting only one particular conversation type. It seems obvious if you try to be the most relatable and interesting, people will favor you... But that's not every conversation. That wouldn't be the case if we're all engineers trying to build a bridge.
wow, that sounds dangerous and an active security risk to any company or individual who did not consent to it and counter intuitive to really anything meaningful at all. The organization that came up with this idea probably is raking it selling other company data to third party organizations and governments. This itself looks like an ad.
> wow, that sounds dangerous and an active security risk to any company or individual who did not consent to it and counter intuitive to really anything meaningful at all.
I assume you're speaking about read.ai (not the rest of my comment)? For what it's worth, the bot starts every conversation with a pop up "are you willing to record this conversation" if you or any party selects no or type "opt out" in the chat at any time it'll leave. You can also set it to only show up when invited.
Conversations are often recorded in the space I'm in (for note taking purposes). So it's fairly convenient. There's A LOT of apps that record meetings for you. Zoom even has this as an option built into their application.
I assume you're speaking about read.ai (not the rest of my comment)? For what it's worth, the bot starts every conversation with a pop up "are you willing to record this conversation" if you or any party selects no or type "opt out" in the chat at any time it'll leave. You can also set it to only show up when invited.
Conversations are often recorded in the space I'm in (for note taking purposes). So it's fairly convenient. There's A LOT of apps that record meetings for you. Zoom even has this as an option built into their application.
I recall one of these transcription bots recently sending out an email summary to everyone on the invite and creeping everyone out. Don’t remember if this was the specific one or not.
I could see that, but I think it really depends on your use case.
I could see having the ability to search all my meetings to find a clip of a conversation / meeting notes with a client would be invaluable. Otherwise I look like an idiot and contact the client again and ask a question they've already answered.
I could see having the ability to search all my meetings to find a clip of a conversation / meeting notes with a client would be invaluable. Otherwise I look like an idiot and contact the client again and ask a question they've already answered.
bumped into a local-only and feee alternative here on HN: https://unblah.me/ no recording or creep, it just measures how much you talk vs others.
I only tried it once, and it somehow felt like my M1 air couldn’t cope with it and Zoom. But it might have improved since.
I only tried it once, and it somehow felt like my M1 air couldn’t cope with it and Zoom. But it might have improved since.
Would love to see this result reproduced. Also a confounding factor might be what they talked about; would be interesting to see a follow-up that tried to break out by subject matter (someone filling time vs. conveying real knowledge vs. responding to the other person, for example).
There are so many effects here that no advice this unguarded has any chance of being correct.
1) there is an economic consideration. 100% of the conversation time must be used. By the pigeonhole principle, someone is going to have to speak at least proportionately, or theres going to be silence. How appreciated overtalkers are is proportional to the average utilization of the conversation time for the people being conversed with.
2) Observational research of the form, "people who do X have better lives", is immediately invalidated as soon as it becomes popular. For a similar example, impostor syndrome became a huge buzzword, and all of a sudden everyone who had any reason at all to think they were underperforming was just a victim of impostor syndrome. This happened basically overnight. People who have been advised to shut up by their parents or researchers or therapists or the media vastly outnumber those who have been encouraged to talk more. Aside from creating an influx to the quiet part of the population, this interacts with point 1, and the next point which is...
3) Whether you are a good conversationalist depends on your audience, and how interesting you are, far far more than it depends on your ratio. People who are interesting to listen to are rewarded with interest when they talk. They are much less likely to be swayed by "research" that suggests that they should do something different. They already probably have what they want.
4) conversations are not independent. Whatever your ratio of talking to listening is, it should tend towards the central value the longer you spend with the conversational group. Of course this research is explicitly limited in scope, but the "false belief" people have, may actually be a long term heuristic. "This person will like me more in the long run if we figure out something to talk about that we both essentially contribute equally to.
5) that last arrow runs in reverse as well. The rule that people like you more when you talk more is exactly reversed. You talk more when you detect that people like you. But both rules are valid, because as a human, you only care about situations in which you like each other, and in that case it is strategic to share the conversation, so you talk less in order to show them your interest in what they have to say because of the golden rule.
1) there is an economic consideration. 100% of the conversation time must be used. By the pigeonhole principle, someone is going to have to speak at least proportionately, or theres going to be silence. How appreciated overtalkers are is proportional to the average utilization of the conversation time for the people being conversed with.
2) Observational research of the form, "people who do X have better lives", is immediately invalidated as soon as it becomes popular. For a similar example, impostor syndrome became a huge buzzword, and all of a sudden everyone who had any reason at all to think they were underperforming was just a victim of impostor syndrome. This happened basically overnight. People who have been advised to shut up by their parents or researchers or therapists or the media vastly outnumber those who have been encouraged to talk more. Aside from creating an influx to the quiet part of the population, this interacts with point 1, and the next point which is...
3) Whether you are a good conversationalist depends on your audience, and how interesting you are, far far more than it depends on your ratio. People who are interesting to listen to are rewarded with interest when they talk. They are much less likely to be swayed by "research" that suggests that they should do something different. They already probably have what they want.
4) conversations are not independent. Whatever your ratio of talking to listening is, it should tend towards the central value the longer you spend with the conversational group. Of course this research is explicitly limited in scope, but the "false belief" people have, may actually be a long term heuristic. "This person will like me more in the long run if we figure out something to talk about that we both essentially contribute equally to.
5) that last arrow runs in reverse as well. The rule that people like you more when you talk more is exactly reversed. You talk more when you detect that people like you. But both rules are valid, because as a human, you only care about situations in which you like each other, and in that case it is strategic to share the conversation, so you talk less in order to show them your interest in what they have to say because of the golden rule.
The research paper (PDF link):
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Quinn-Hirschi/publicati...
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Quinn-Hirschi/publicati...
i think there's an unconscious impulse to try to seem either servile or mysterious in conversations where you want to be liked or seem interesting. so it makes sense that people assume reticence to speak is a better tactic than talking a lot.
Servile or mysterious? That doesn't resonate with me at all. Could that be a function of your personality and not a widely applicable thing?
well to want to be 'liked' is to put yourself at the mercy of someone else's opinion of you. and to seem 'interesting' without saying much is to elicit intrigue - or mystery, so you want to seem mysterious.
I think it's more correct that people appreciate being liked. If you don't feel liked by this person, you'll gravitate to a different person. Calling it "servility" is really stretching it.
> seem 'interesting' without saying much is to elicit intrigue - or mystery, so you want to seem mysterious.
I'm sure there are people to whom that applies. But it doesn't seem likely to be widely applicable to me. Most people just aren't going for the "dark and mysterious" vibe.
> seem 'interesting' without saying much is to elicit intrigue - or mystery, so you want to seem mysterious.
I'm sure there are people to whom that applies. But it doesn't seem likely to be widely applicable to me. Most people just aren't going for the "dark and mysterious" vibe.
The findings of this study are fascinating and counter-intuitive. It seems that we often have mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations, and that speaking more than half the time can actually make us more likable. This goes against the common advice to "let the other person talk" and shows the importance of challenging our assumptions about social interactions. It would be interesting to see how these findings apply in different contexts, such as group conversations or online forums. Overall, this study highlights the complex dynamics of conversation and the need for further research in this area.
Conversation & social matters are so variable and vibe based that I think trying to get grip on something like 'likability' via a metric like 'contributions ratio' seems absurd.
"It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it." (Maurice Switzer)
Posting a pay-walled link is essentially click-bait advertising.
Shame on you... =P
Posting a pay-walled link is essentially click-bait advertising.
Shame on you... =P
I always start out by over talking everyone and then I suddenly go 100% silent and ask everyone to pay $12 a month and give me their email to hear more myself...
That way you can always tall who really is interested in what you have to say.
That way you can always tall who really is interested in what you have to say.
“In Study 3, we tested the accuracy of these forecasts by randomly assigning participants to speak for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, or 70% of the time in a dyadic conversation.“
This study does not correlate to the real word at all. A computer telling you when you should speak is so different from a natural conversation. In the real world, you’re not speaking because you’re listening, intentionally; in the study, you’re not speaking because the computer said who’s turn it was.
This study does not correlate to the real word at all. A computer telling you when you should speak is so different from a natural conversation. In the real world, you’re not speaking because you’re listening, intentionally; in the study, you’re not speaking because the computer said who’s turn it was.
Surely what you say is as important as how much you talk. I suppose you can assign someone literally to just fill up a certain percentage of a conversation with words (though I wouldn't trust someone accurately to gauge whether they were speaking, say, 30% of the time or 40% of the time), but you can't assign someone to have something to say a given percentage of the time.
On a certain level what you are taking about matters. But lots of times it doesn’t. When I’m in a pub talking to someone about their weather, or what they’re drinking, or a sports game, I don’t really care about the content of the conversation.
A lot of the time conversations are just there to have some company and socializing is for the sake of socializing.
A lot of the time conversations are just there to have some company and socializing is for the sake of socializing.
[deleted]
There is an episode of Seinfeld where George Costanza tries to get more time in front of a woman he's interested in by leaving his hat in her apartment thinking that even though she doesn't like him - just listening to him talk over and over will eventually win her over.
There is truth in this. We're wired to connect with those within our proximity.
There is truth in this. We're wired to connect with those within our proximity.
Introverts appreciate people that can carry a conversation and people generally like people they appreciate.
I can't access the research's methodolody. If the total number of interactions were too small or done in a single social group, the results don't hold. Please let me know if you find anything.
I think a lot of this also depends on how close you already are to a partner. Ie is this a first or 2nd date? Or have you been together for awhile? Are you romantic partners, or just close friends?
Anyone know where I can find full text?
Here it is: https://send.q1q.wtf/download/e2a1de7fbb78f9e1/#8Z_K4lRRIrI1...
Expires after 100 downloads or 7 days.
Expires after 100 downloads or 7 days.
Balance in everything.
"Some people find some other people more likable when those people speak more in a conversation, but drawing any other conclusions than that would be fantastically stupid on its own merits, and doubly so given the recent crises in this field."
There, I fixed it for you.
There, I fixed it for you.
"Don't be snarky."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My correction was neither snarky nor a shallow dismissal, but rather a genuine and 100% serious correction of the conclusions that can be responsibly drawn from the research.
Ex: We have decades of research on ASD and ADHD that have utterly failed to serve the very large number of people who don’t fit the profile of “young white American boy” to whom that research actually applied because the conclusions were wrongly assumed to generalize to the wider population.
It’s not a new problem, and there is no justification whatsoever for being oblivious to that problem in this field anymore.
Ex: We have decades of research on ASD and ADHD that have utterly failed to serve the very large number of people who don’t fit the profile of “young white American boy” to whom that research actually applied because the conclusions were wrongly assumed to generalize to the wider population.
It’s not a new problem, and there is no justification whatsoever for being oblivious to that problem in this field anymore.
I'm sure you have a substantive point, but the way you communicated it pattern-matched so closely to the snark and shallow-dismissal categories that its substantiveness was more or less lost.
I understand how frustrating it is when there's a point which is well-known (to you) and people ought to be more aware of it. The problem is, when you let that frustration slip into your comment, or indeed dominate it, you end up sending mixed messages to any user who doesn't know the point or why it ought to be well known by now.
It's common in HN comments for people to post something that assumes the state in their own head, and makes sense in that context, but makes little sense to the reader who doesn't have that state in their head. To such a reader, your GP comment comes across as snark and shallow dismissal. The thing to realize is that only a slight minority of the audience—basically, nobody but you—has that same state in their head. Therefore, if you want to be understood, you can't assume it—you have to assume statelessness instead, and bootstrap the context by including the relevant bits explicitly.
It's also common on HN for people to respond to a moderation scolding with a version of what they actually meant and could have posted in the first place. I call this the rebound effect (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Your reply here is interesting from that angle because it's a partial rebound: it tells us part of the state you have in your head (knowledge of decades of research on ASD and ADHD), but still not enough to really grok your point, and the rest of it is still venting frustration.
It's of course perfectly natural to want to vent frustration when one feels it; the trouble is that this doesn't communicate the information that other people need to understand you, and the frustration itself adds noise to the signal. It also is likely to activate adjacent frustrations that other people feel, and therefore to evoke an unhelpful argument, rather than the curious conversation we want here.
I understand how frustrating it is when there's a point which is well-known (to you) and people ought to be more aware of it. The problem is, when you let that frustration slip into your comment, or indeed dominate it, you end up sending mixed messages to any user who doesn't know the point or why it ought to be well known by now.
It's common in HN comments for people to post something that assumes the state in their own head, and makes sense in that context, but makes little sense to the reader who doesn't have that state in their head. To such a reader, your GP comment comes across as snark and shallow dismissal. The thing to realize is that only a slight minority of the audience—basically, nobody but you—has that same state in their head. Therefore, if you want to be understood, you can't assume it—you have to assume statelessness instead, and bootstrap the context by including the relevant bits explicitly.
It's also common on HN for people to respond to a moderation scolding with a version of what they actually meant and could have posted in the first place. I call this the rebound effect (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Your reply here is interesting from that angle because it's a partial rebound: it tells us part of the state you have in your head (knowledge of decades of research on ASD and ADHD), but still not enough to really grok your point, and the rest of it is still venting frustration.
It's of course perfectly natural to want to vent frustration when one feels it; the trouble is that this doesn't communicate the information that other people need to understand you, and the frustration itself adds noise to the signal. It also is likely to activate adjacent frustrations that other people feel, and therefore to evoke an unhelpful argument, rather than the curious conversation we want here.
Is that how you do science? I can't make my predictions 100% accurate, therefore there's nothing I can say about the subject at all.
There's a huge problem in many branches of science where, using normal methodology, it's possible to come up with an endless stream of results that are unlikely to have any predictive validity outside of the extremely specific circumstances of the experiment -- and often not even there. This gives the illusion of knowledge, but everything you "know" falls apart if you actually try to apply it to the world around you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
An attempt by DARPA to evaluate the various fields of social science found that only about half of the papers they tried to replicate actually gave the same results when tried a second time. People in those fields could give pretty good predictions of which papers would replicate, but the publishing apparatus doesn't seem to have much in the way of quality control to filter out the papers everyone knows are junk -- nor do people cite the junk studies less often. Here's a very readable writeup with details:
https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with...
What's more, correlational studies have another problem: even a consistent-but-small correlation between two variables usually is non-causal when you're looking at sufficiently complicated webs of cause and effect, e.g. the ones found in the social sciences like psychology. The math here has some profound, dire implications, and I found this article to be a huge eye-opener:
https://www.gwern.net/Causality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
An attempt by DARPA to evaluate the various fields of social science found that only about half of the papers they tried to replicate actually gave the same results when tried a second time. People in those fields could give pretty good predictions of which papers would replicate, but the publishing apparatus doesn't seem to have much in the way of quality control to filter out the papers everyone knows are junk -- nor do people cite the junk studies less often. Here's a very readable writeup with details:
https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with...
What's more, correlational studies have another problem: even a consistent-but-small correlation between two variables usually is non-causal when you're looking at sufficiently complicated webs of cause and effect, e.g. the ones found in the social sciences like psychology. The math here has some profound, dire implications, and I found this article to be a huge eye-opener:
https://www.gwern.net/Causality
If 80% or more of your published and "peer reviewed" predictions were non-reproducible crap (as is the case with said soft sciences), then you'd indeed better not say anything about the subject at all.
Just because you're "doing science" and getting some results back, doesn't mean you're doing something accurate or worth over not doing.
Just because you're "doing science" and getting some results back, doesn't mean you're doing something accurate or worth over not doing.
It’s more that performing this experiments with rats would only be slightly less representative of the general population than the college undergraduates they almost certainly used.
I'm going to take the charitable view and assume that what they found was true and reproducible within the artificial scenario they created, but I'm with you — conversation is a dance. It's less about "how much to talk" and more about meeting the other conversationalist(s) energy and vibe, vibrant interaction vs. monologuing, "yes, and"-ing at the right opportunities, not needlessly interrupting just to hear the sound of your voice, etc.
I certainly wouldn't assume a linear relationship between talking time and likeability. There has to be a drop-off at some point, since few people like being ambushed by someone who won't let them say a single word. Familiarity also plays a role. It might be somewhat relieving for a new acquaintance to carry a conversation, but wearying for a familiar person to subject you to endless verbal barrages.
For a second I thought this was the actual conclusion taken from the study and I felt respect to the authors for speaking the truth.
Same with what you talk about. People like to talk about themselves, but many of them are interested in hearing about you too. Just keep it under control, and lob that conversation topic ball back and forth regularly.