Life in the 21st Century: Talkers
Some people are wired to socialize through talking. While waiting to get a blood test yesterday, I sat next to such a person. I’m not such a person. Conversation is difficult for me; I can never think of anything to say to a complete stranger. This man could and didn’t hesitate to talk. Before he left, he had talked to most of the people in the waiting room. Did he have anything to say? He didn’t seem to but that didn’t hold him back. Actually, he was a pleasant person; talkers are always pleasant people. They get you hooked on their pleasantness before you realize they just want to talk. What’s the difference between the mentally ill people on the streets who are talking to themselves and these loquacious socialites? The people on the streets are usually quite angry at something. I don’t have an opinion; I’ve never understood talkers.
These people highlight the difference between interaction and intra-action. On a social level, the difference is difficult to discover. When does a person who is talking to you cease to talk to you and begin to talk to him/her-self? The behavior could be the same. In both situations, there is a speaker and a listener. The speaker may or may not be doing most of the talking. There is a subject of conversation to which both the speaker and listener can relate. This last criterion is important, because in the example of the mentally ill person talking to him/herself on the street, if there is a listener, the listener probably cannot relate to the subject of conversation. Also, there may be several subjects of conversation occurring simultaneously. Normally, the difference between interaction and intra-action is very subtle.
For example, the normal conversation may begin with interaction between the speaker and listener. As the conversation develops, the conversational roles of the two people involved may switch as each brings something to the conversation. Let’s assume that the conversation progresses and eventually one of the people participating begins to talk to him/herself. This may occur when something said elicits memories of an event containing strong emotional import for one of the speakers. The speaker begins to talk about this event, but the intention of communication shifts, imperceptibly, from providing information to personal processing of the emotions elicited by the event. To the listener, this shift may not be apparent. Thus, how can the conversationalist be sure that interaction is occurring at any time in a conversation?
If the person talking is mentally ill, there are usually clues. The talker may begin to express emotions inappropriate to the situation. But in the course of normal conversation, one can’t be sure. There arises the prospect that we are all merely talking to ourselves. If not all the time, then a significant portion of the time. Wiser people than I have suggested we all may be mentally ill. That may be the true human condition. I’m not going that far. I’m just saying we may not always be talking with one another when we talk to one another. I’m questioning this act of constant talking. It seems to be perniciously growing. I’m afraid our behavior of talking may have gotten out of control. What are audio-visual devices but talking machines? Incessant talkers. Their chatter fills the emotional holes in our lives. In my years of watching TV (I finally gave mine away several years ago), I noticed these things will laugh at anything regardless whether or not it’s funny. They tell us what is and isn’t funny by laughing. Without thinking, we do what they do and laugh. Do I really want these things shaping my life?