I’m not a talker or so I tell myself.

I considered if that was true. I do talk. I ask questions. I engage in conversations.

At work or rather when I used to work, I was vocal and I was heard. As a journalist, I asked or shouted out questions, depending on the situation. One-on-one interviews, which are normally prearranged, are calmer and quieter. These are with companies/people who have something interesting or new to announce. Press conferences can get a little shouty if there are contentious issues, too many journos with questions and/or when interviewees are on the move, as in walking and talking, simultaneously.

As a PR practitioner, I communicated my thoughts and plans across to my clients or whomever I was facing or speaking with. I didn’t not say what was on my mind. And, even when I knew it was going to be a hard sell or shot down, I said my piece, diplomatically that is. I felt I needed to present not just both but all sides of a story/proposal/argument. Pros, cons, and other eventualities. Then, the decision was the client’s to make. There were successes and not so positive outcomes but on balance it was alright, I think.

Socially, I don’t know. Maybe, I don’t speak as much or loudly. Maybe I speak less when there are other people contributing towards a conversation. For sure I’m not the loudest person in a room or at a table. I’ve been told I speak more softly than most, maybe.

I don’t particularly like long conversations and/or extended get-togethers. Mainly because I don’t have very much to say.  Maybe I do. There are things happening with and around me every day. Maybe, I don’t feel like and/or am lazy to share them. Maybe, I think they are not share-worthy. I’ve been told that I edit myself. Maybe, that’s what I do. Edit. Anyways, I don’t mind listening. Admittedly, sometimes I get a tad bored, as would most people, I assume. 

Anyways, what got me thinking and the reason for my rambling was I contradicted myself by talking for more than an hour each with sisters’ number 3 and 4 in the same week. Wow. We chatted away on a varied number of topics. There were parallel opinions as well as differences. We had our own individual perspectives. We listened. We didn’t argue, persuade, or convince one another. It was enlightening and enriching. Enjoyable.  

I didn’t realise but apparently what we had could be expressed as a dialogue, ‘a cooperative, two-way conversation. The goal, yes, goal, is for participants/people to exchange information and build relationships with one another[1].’  

I also discovered that ‘effective dialogue generally has four important characteristics: symmetry, short segments, specifics, and summary[2].  And, these traits apply in all our relationships –family/siblings, romantic, friends, work colleagues, and acquaintances.

Symmetry refers to the balance of how much each participant or sister/brother or husband/wife or boss/employee speaks or contributes to a dialogue. Whether they have equal time to air their views. Asymmetry is where one person does most of the talking while the other listens, and ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’ in response.

Short segments refer to how much is said at a time. For effective dialogue, each person should generally offer brief comments rather than saying too much all at one.

This is interesting.

‘Monologues, by contrast, take away more than they add to the discussion. Listening is a lot like eating. To take in what you hear, small bites work better than large chunks😊. To keep the bites small enough, either the speaker needs to pause regularly, expecting to take turns talking and listening, or the listener needs to interrupt … Long monologues lose data. A listener can only pick up one or two points at a time and can respond to only one. All but the first of the multiple points in a longer monologue go by the wayside[3].’ Hmm.

Specifics refer to explaining in detail concerns that you might have when you are trying to solve a problem together with your partner/sibling/friend. Asking questions also helps to better understand the underlying concerns. This reminded me of the time that sister number 4 suggested palliative care for my mum. It was a difficult conversation to have but it was pivotal.

Summaries are not necessary when the purpose of the conversation is just for fun or a catch-up. They are, however, useful when trying to solve together a specific issue or problem.

‘Summaries prevent information loss. They consolidate the information put forth thus far and assure that your data has entered the shared information pool. If any input has been omitted or lost, the summary gives you a second chance to voice it[4].’

Of the four characteristics for effective dialogue, I think I will take symmetry and short segments going into my next conversation.