Avoid These Sentences to be a Better Conversationalist

Talking with friends in Ishigaki, September 2021

Welcome to 2022! I am excited to do more yoga, surfing and exciting projects at work this year. On the note of self-improvement, I want to be a better conversationalist by saying and not saying a few things that I will write about in this post. These are the lessons I learnt from the observations of people's reactions, reflections of my own reactions and countless emotional fallouts due to mis-communication that stemmed from the inappropriate use of language. One of my biggest pitfalls had been that when I said something that was not accurate to what I intended, and even after I learnt that, I sometimes would still think that the conversation partner should have understood my intention. There are many reasons why I would think so. The common ones are: come on, no one would be that dumb to think like this, of course I meant that; you should know Michelle by now that she would not think like that. There should be a balance of an assumption of common sense and the effort to be more precise and elaborate at times in our use of language. We do not want to waste time to define what we mean by chairs and apples, but it is equally important to ensure the quality of the words that come out of our mouths. I believe the few points that I am going to make are equally useful no matter if you are trying to have a fun conversation, have an intellectual discussion, reach a consensus or convince someone.

#1: "I can't believe [blank]"

The "I can't believe [blank]" sentence structure provides little to zero value, if it does not make the situation worse. I think most people think that they are make a very powerful statement but they do not realize that this is more of an expression of feelings than ... than what? Exactly! The [blank] part is usually a fact that is indisputable. Assuming that the people in the conversation agree to this indisputable fact, this statement does not really mean much, unless it is followed by reasonings. And when one follows up with reasons, it is still better to avoid "I can't believe" and say something like "I disagree to." Why? Because "I can't believe" implies "people who disagree with me are unbelievably dumb," which sounds pretty bad by itself already. Now imagine if such a person exists in your group. Do not get me wrong. I think it is completely fine to use "I can't believe [blank]," because sometimes you just want to express your feelings, but my point is to be aware of what your intention is and who else are present. Do not use this phrase if you want to make an argument because it does not work. Do not use this phrase if you are not hundred percents sure that everyone else in the room is on your side because you will offend them.

#2 "What do you mean by [blank]?" "Define [blank]."

In a situation when you want to ask for clarification without any malicious intent, my general advice is avoid saying something like the above. Unless you have a super soft voice or a super amiable personality, it is really difficult not to come off as being condescending when you say something like that. These sentences somewhat imply that they did not do a good job at expressing themselves. You already have a strong desire to understand the other person. That is probably why you cared to ask for clarification in the first place, so now make sure you demonstrate your genuine desire to understand instead of any condescension. There are many ways of doing so. Some good starters are: "Can you hold on for a sec because I feel like I might be misunderstanding you here," "there can be multiple interpretations of [blank,] can you tell which you mean?" It is a bonus if you can reiterate the part that you did not understand because it shows that you were paying attention. The key in the art of asking for clarifications is to show that you are not understanding them, instead of they are not expressing themselves well.

#3 Let people finish their thoughts

I have heard that interruption is more of an American thing, so you might not experience this as much in your culture. If you have experience talking with a person who interrupts a lot, you know how stressful it can get. It feels like you are being challenged all the time. Then you feel pressured to be brief so that they have less chances to interrupt. You feel pressured to speak accurately because you know you will be interrupted before you can correct yourself. And interruption can really destroy your train of thoughts! It does not sound so fun, does it? Yet, why do we do that all the time to others? I think people who interrupt a lot and people who have weak responses in a conversation are two sides of the same coin. It all boils down to the fact that people do not want to listen. Therefore, before you get into a conversation, ask yourself: is understanding your opponent one of the goals here? I think this little mental note can really help people become more patient and let others finish their thoughts. On the other hand, there are occasions when you just want to get out, like when you bumped into a salesperson. In these circumstances, be my guest, you should interrupt and make your point that you do not want be there.

Unfortunately, according to the 7-38-55 Rule arrived by psychology professor Albert Mehrabian in 1971, only 7% of communication are through spoken words, so there are a lot more work to be done to become a good conversationalist. However, I believe every component of communication would naturally follow if you are mindful of your intention before you get into a conversation and during. Let it be words, tones or body language. Finding the proper expressions for your intention is probably even harder. Thus; I provided a few examples to show how one can use words to better demonstrate the perspective of trying to understand. I hope these tips will be as useful to me as to you.