I can't really recall the number of times I have been saturated in conversational narcissism, both in and out of the workplace. I didn't even realize there was a specific term for self-centered conversations until I had been bombarded with it enough to look it up and see how common it was. I will define what I mean so we can be on the same page or at least try to hit a mark where our two pages of understanding blend. In reference to this article, conversational narcissism occurs when there is a conscious or unconscious attempt to gain control of the conversation so that the main focus is on one party. The behavior could stem from a need for attention, such as a need to be heard or seen or from a need to control or dominate.
Most likely, we have all participated in these types of conversations at one time or another. You know, those texts that you receive that ask you how you are, only for the texter/caller to be seeking an open door to vent. The other person demonstrates very quickly that they aren't really interested in how you are, but interested in whether or not an ear is available for what they have to say. There, of course, is a threshold of monopolizing that has to be taken into consideration here. Sometimes, one side may feel the need to fill up gaps in the conversation when the other doesn't feel like saying much. Therefore, how much monopolizing is done certainly depends on the state of the dynamic. However, when there is absolutely no interest from one party in the well-being or events of the world of another beyond being a sounding board, then you know you have a problem.
I wonder how many people are really aware that they do this. Hence, why I said it could be conscious or unconscious. If the inquirer were being honest, their words might be something similar to "So, anyway, enough about you, back to me. I'm not really interested in anything about your day." One who is uninterested will not even respond to any relatable point that you use in the conversation, whether you purposely say something rare and interesting that begs explanation or not. Instead of asking for more details, they will ignore what you say and turn the conversation back to themselves.
A person asked me how I was doing after a gap in communicating for a while and I responded (which was not a lie):
"Just processing another level of existential clearing while drinking wine."
This statement, which I found to be quite satisfying in summing up what I had been up to, went unacknowledged. It wasn't the first time I had heard crickets after speaking, but really? The correspondent quickly told me what they had been up to in their world, returning to the real reason for their text, which was to talk about themselves. I can't deny that there was a fraction of a moment in which I wanted to completely ignore them, and then I thought, that is exactly what they just did to me. But, seriously. How, in the hell, do you just ignore a statement like that? Are you not the least bit curious as to inquire what I mean?!! Maybe those kinds of statements are uninteresting to most, I don't know. But, if someone was to say that to me, you better believe I would be digging for more. "What do you mean existential clearing? Processing what questions exactly? There are levels? Do you have a gun in hand while processing? Is this healthy?... The questions would certainly continue from there. Instead, the response I received was what the correspondent had cooked for dinner, entirely dismissing what I had just said. I don't even think these people really read texts. I think they just respond to their own mindstream...
I also wonder why people are not more curious about the state of others or desire to share relatable points. I would rather hear your current thoughts about experiences in life than what you had for dinner. Even if you had talked about what you had for dinner, I would follow with questions about the meal. Is that your favorite? Oh, you like Indian food? Do you like your masala spicy or milder? Maybe it is that I haven't met people that truly share a genuine interest in others or the ones that do fail to speak for fear of being used as a sounding board.
At my recent employment, people were so surprised by the amount of information I knew about my co-workers, as if I were some undercover FBI agent researching forbidden files. My response to their "How do you know all of this?" inquiries was "How do you not know?" I ask questions, of course. If we aren't engaging with others to simply fulfill our need to be heard or acknowledged we usually discover the most interesting and unusual things about others, which more often than not, do not support the initial version of them we have in our minds. If information is an authentic representation
What's interesting is that many one-siders will conclude engagements on their terms. In a recent conversation, I went to reply to a text that I mistakenly assumed was a conversation of shared interest only to receive the concluding text even before I had shared a response.
"Well, I'll let you get back to things. Good chatting with you."
I paused in the middle of my responding text. Oh, okay, guess we are done. Never mind my response.
There could be multiple reasons for my correspondent finalizing the conversation; they regretted the timing of starting the conversation and changed their mind about chatting, or they could be drunk or scattered in thought. Whatever the reason, these types often also make it appear as if they are ending the conversation in consideration of the other party rather than because they needed it to end. Sometimes the reasoning is true, but other times not.
"Well, I know you have a lot to do."
How do you know if I have a lot to do? You didn't ask because you are too busy talking about yourself. What you mean is you have a lot to do or need/want to end the conversation and are indirectly placing the reason for disengagement on me. And yet, if the conversation was one-sided, including the time it was supposed to end, maybe they are doing me a favor by letting me get back to something more fulfilling, like talking to myself.
Sometimes people are confused about my withdrawal that quickly follows these types of interactions, but I can't explain because they wouldn't listen. 😉 I can't pretend interest in one-sided investments or meaningless conversations. Though I want to know about others, sometimes it is nice to be heard too. Reciprocal engagements. Why can't that happen? Unless you are getting paid to listen and never be heard, the best conversations are the ones you have with yourself.
Comments