larissa green

junior copywriter, TED

This conversation is closed.

In an individualistic world where autonomy is a requirement for human-involvement, should conversation be mandatory?

As a 23-year old female, working at TED with amazing people and amongst the greatest of minds, I find that when one introduces themselves to another, our personal walls dissolve rapidly. From watching speakers cheer each other on during auditions, and watching the personal connections develop in such short time, it's almost as beautiful as watching their brain's dendrites connect all sorts of seemingly impossible things during presentations.

However, walking around my neighborhood of South Williamsburg, my soul burns when the eyes of my peers pierce it with their unrivaled fervor of judgement and apathy [that I secretly hope is false.]

Within all of us, young and old, is the drive and will to connect--so why do we give blank stares to the glow of our phone, instead of smiling back at the faces across from us? Why do we put so much weight on assimilating to the standards of others in order to feel accepted?

I want to ask the TED community to start a conversation where we can all be honest about how we generally feel speaking to others in public. Because, as a former journalism student turned creative-writing graduate, I wonder if we would all be happier knowing that everyone we pass by is a potential friend, lover, or soulmate.

We tell our most painful secrets to strangers in stream-of-consciousness outbursts, but refuse to communicate wholly with the ones closest to us. Why?

Why do you choose anonymity or intimacy?

  • thumb

    Gord G

    • +3
    Jul 5 2012: What should be mandatory is thoughtfulness. Conversation is the veil of intellect. Considered action is the substance of real interaction. It takes actual commitment.
  • Jul 3 2012: In the spirit of your questions, I am going to risk being very grandfatherly by revealiing my first impression of your questions; please do not take offense: You are so 23!

    At your age I could not talk to strangers. I am now 62 and I can start a conversation with anyone anywhere and within the first three exchanges determine where I want to go with it. I think this is a skill that we learn through experience, and as we do the discomfort passes.

    Just yesterday I started a conversation with a co-worker whom I hardly know, and we talked about the relative values of sexual gratification and intimacy between the ages of 20 and 40.

    In a different TED conversation I made the point that conversations with people outside of our usual social circle are necessary to provide us with others' view of the universe. The notion that our five senses, from our own singular life experience, can provide us with an accurate idea of this huge universe is laughable. And still, most of us think we are right about things; its those other people who don't understand. Sometimes I think that all self confidence is an illusion. But many people do succeed.

    Often, we avoid intimate conversations with our family members because we have way too much to lose.

    To answer the original question, no, conversation should not be mandatory. But its wise to seek information from a wide variety of sources.
  • Jul 2 2012: larissa,

    "Why do we put so much weight on assimilating to the standards of others in order to feel accepted?"

    Is it about being accepted or being understood? Often becoming accepted in a social setting is really just a path to becoming understood. People want to be understood because if they don't feel understood they often feel isolated, and isolation can be emotionally debilitating; where being understood can be emotionally uplifting. By "assimilating to the standards of others" they develop a form of communication that helps them become understood. (this could be called "the path of least resistance").
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2012: At 10 to the -34 reality dissolves and all you see is energy and vibration between states of energy and being. Individuality is a state of perception and the more we have conversations about our perception of our own individuality the more we dissolve our constructs and if played correctly the more we see unity and cohesive patterns and systems emerging that require or benefit from our yes conversation is a part of it - but so isa shift in perception and a training of the mind for compassion and collaboration through dissolving constructs which seem so real....
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2012: Raja, how do we learn toplay it properly , as you suggest?
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2012: Hi Deborah, by learning to observe the observer or the actor (i.e. you). If you can have a part of your mind observe your every action, reaction, thought and mood you will find yourself being able to retune at will and bring yourself back on demand to a more participatory less ego driven state of individuality. It does not mean you lose your identity, just your clinging to it. There are techniques I have seen and some I have learned - first would be Mindfulness - which is a form of meditation that begins by observing the breath and then your body and then your mind as you observe yourself acting in the world and each thought that comes...have a look at it. There is also a lot of Yoga (Raja and Kriya Yoga) around this as well. Or centering. Or martial arts actually help too - like Tai Chi and Qi Gong. They all help you learn to observe the actor which is your individuality and then open you up to your larger more universal self - the real observer...
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2012: Thanks Raja! in my psychology degrees we learned a lot about mindfulness but I do find that the clots in my brain change my focus and thus make me less mindful and more chatty which is sort of horrifying.
  • thumb
    Jun 15 2012: You know that little voice in your head? The one that says "head down, be safe, don't do that, don't talk to strangers"? That voice is what keeps people from interacting.

    People are afraid:

    -Of being rejected
    -of being robbed
    -of finding out your missing something
    -of looking strange to others
    -of how they sound
    -of you
    -of themselves

    People who don't smile at strangers are scared or do not have respect.
    • Jun 21 2012: reach out in the darkness
      reach out in the darkness
      reach out in the darkness and you might find a friend...
  • thumb
    Jul 11 2012: I have to agree with what Barry Palmer said--you are so 23! Don't take that as an insult, though. I was there as well.

    I know that when I was young, I was contemptuous of my middle-class small town/ suburban neighborhood after experiencing urban life in college. But, now that I am nearing 50, I can see that I was raised in a great neighborhood. With great neighbors. And parents sacrificing themselves to provide all of us kids a safe, healthy and happy childhood.

    That said, Middle-aged I would not be so keen, however, to judge the world. Williamsburg is probably not dead, but thriving. You likely just have to learn where and how to look. Having traveled all over the USA, I have been universally impressed by how, down deep, most people from all over are decent. And just want to live, love and work for something worthwhile.

    Learning this took some doing--but it was fun. I just had to slow down, be it at a Starbucks or waiting in line at the DMV, and ask a stranger, "How's tricks?" And be more interested in them than in my own ideas. Though I frequently get a startled, "deer in headlights look", most often people were open. And I mostly just listened, seeing myself reflected in them.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    Jul 3 2012: Hello Larissa,

    two simple facts may immediately disqualify my thoughts on your interesting question. At first I am German and secondly a graduate engineer and both species are not well known for being great communicators ... :o)

    But the way you described both scenarios in which you perceived this opposite forms of 'collectiveness' became so alive, so congruent with my experiences, that I will give it a try.

    The group of people you are comparing, their 'spirits' and the circumstances in which they 'engage' are quite the opposite of each other. At TED it is easy to get into a conversation, because if you meet someone you don't know it becomes obvious to start a conversation by talking about TED itself. And frome there it evolves.

    So having something in common truly helps a conversation to get started, as it gives a good 'reason', almost a justification to the fact that one stranger starts to talk to another.

    I experienced, that lacking this 'virtual' justification for a first encounter things usually become difficult to many, as just a view are brave enough to go without it or have the rare talent in creating one just out of 'thin air'.

    The interesting thing is, that most people actually don't mind having a conversation with someone they don't know yet almost all of them are lacking this very talent to create this 'virtual justification' to start the initiative. This state could actually be seen as the 'ice age', as it creates this so called 'ice' which is almost literally to be broken in between people to communicate with one another.

    So if you do this famous experiment, smiling at people you don't know and for no better reason that sharing the same planet, the reactions are interesting. Children up to a certain age usually smile back, big time, as they haven't learned the concept of false intentions yet. Beyond that age it differs from a honest open smile to irritation to grouchy(ness?).

    Good reasons have been lost these days, so let us find new ones... :o)
  • Jun 30 2012: "Mandatory" or "compulsory" doesn't seem to work in the context you propose. It can and probably should be encouraged as a social development necessity but social systems go awry when we talk about forcing people to do something that is by nature happenstancial.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2012: I think our innate fixation to always look good at all levels and our general fear of uncertainty, play a huge part in making this kind of choice. Also the context we are in; the context will always affect our choices.
    • thumb
      Jun 29 2012: You are always so clear sighted, Helena and you make such good comments. How is that beautiful nephew?
      • thumb
        Jun 30 2012: Hi Debra,
        Well thank you and idem.
        My nephew is growing strong and healthy, thank you for asking. He is almost walking and we are all head over heels in love with him; he is simply adorable.
        Hope you are keeping well and fully recovered from your operation.
        Lots of love,
  • Jun 26 2012: I detest small talk. I detest even more people who try to turn every chance encounter into a social opportunity. When a stranger says "hi" to me in an elevator, I think what they're really saying is "I can't stand to be alone with my own thoughts for 5 minutes, so I want you to entertain me."

    Casual encounters like that are utterly meaningless. The only way to truly connect with people is to talk for more than 2 minutes, about more than just the weather. That requires creating a time and a place for conversation, which is doable but requires more effort than most people are willing to put in. The reason why people "socialize" more and more over the internet is because it requires little effort to do so. I don't think that is a bad thing, since the internet removes many of the biases and inhibitions that plague us in real life.
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2012: Maybe they plague you and you detest them -- but I really don't. I enjoy them and explore my thoughts and perceptions of society and people through interactions with other people.
      • thumb
        Jul 11 2012: Men v Women there... Sexuallity exists on a spectrum... but, as linda suggests, men don't like small talk. Men who say they like small talk, are lying to you because they want to have sex with you : )

        Men are introverts and women are extroverts. I'm obviously overstating this and exaggerating a bit, and also... Thank god. I always revert back to Dave Chappelle "If a man could fuck a beautiful woman in a hole in the ground... He wouldn't buy a house". If I met a beautiful woman was down for it, I could totally just chill by a stream with a fishing line, and live in a home made hut.

        That's how society collapses... Women just stop toying with men, and start humping like rabbits : p

        To be fair, I think there are two reasons women love small talk, that make perfect sense. I think you get more information out of it than we do... Women are much better at intuiting personality through body language etc. Men don't get that... we hear about the weather, and it bores us.

        The other reason, is that men are usually unhappy, especially in a poor neighborhood. So when you walk up to them with a smile on your face, and ask them how they're doing... They think "You look happy, why would I bother you with how i'm doing? Move along". Meanwhile if a man walked up to them with a smile on their face "Hey how are ya?", "Bugger Off"... "Alright".

        You're basically just forcing them to pretend everything is okay in front of you. "How are things? Jeez lady... Do you watch the news? They suck". Instead we're polite, we fake a smile and send you on your way.

        Why don't you talk to strangers? Have you read youtube comments? Those the people you really want to introduce into your life? There are some pretty awful human beings out there lol.

        Logic defies extroversion... but it is an absolute necessity that one become engaged in a community, in order to find happiness.

        I don't like anonymity, I'm me here, just as eccentric, honest, and crazy as in real life.
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2012: Dear Lee,
      On one of the other questions someone is offering free hugs. I would offer you one, but she is way cuter and much younger. Please seek her out. You sound like you need a hug!
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2012: Lee, I think how you feel is partly due to you being a man as men are not as "chatty" as women nor as social. And again, I say "partly" as there are other factors too, like culture (even though yours is similar to the questioners and these responders), that play a role in how one would reply.
      • Jun 28 2012: I feel this way because I'm an introvert. We all feel this way - we just don't often say so because society thinks that introverted feelings are wrong feelings. But I'm tired of apologizing for the fact that I want my interactions with other people to be meaningful.
        • thumb
          Jun 29 2012: This is NOT evidence of introversion, sir:
          "Casual encounters like that are utterly meaningless. The only way to truly connect with people is to talk for more than 2 minutes, about more than just the weather. That requires creating a time and a place for conversation, which is doable but requires more effort than most people are willing to put in. The reason why people "socialize" more and more over the internet is because it requires little effort to do so. I don't think that is a bad thing, since the internet removes many of the biases and inhibitions that plague us in real life. "

          Introversion deserves more respect and almost always offers more.
  • Jun 26 2012: (Part 2) response to that, I grew up to abhor Americans because of the culture around me that hated it. We are who we are not because we decided to be that way, but because of the arbitrary factors that affected us to make those decisions.

    So where does a human being deserve to be judged contemptuously? I argue never. Ever. Not in greed, not in murder, never.

    That is not to say judgments at all shouldn’t be made. You can say a person’s tall, a person’s short, without having it affect your overall judgment on the person; it is when we believe our judgments are important does it affect our ability to empathize. And I believe no judgment should be important enough to cause such a barrier to empathy. And I think we should be advocating for that more.

    Now this is all not say that people don’t need to feel as though they are responsible for their actions; we do, it is absolutely a needed social construct. But we don’t need contempt.

    And if we were able to change this culture of contempt, I think we would see a large change in stranger-engagement. Although it could also happen the other way around (:
  • Jun 26 2012: I love this topic. Empathy, compassion, is really what I believe allows us to create relationships, care about each other, love, motivate us to help each other.

    I think that the general norms of judgment in our society have played a large part in leading to this scarcity of stranger-engagement in our culture.

    The culture part, I believe, is important to point out. It is not as though all people who do not engage with strangers are apathetic.
    There seems to be a common uneasiness in personal engagement with those one doesn’t know, putting one’s self out there among those who do not. It’s scary, especially because it’s uncommon; the more common it is the more often people would be influenced to do it.

    Contemptuous judgment is the root problem, the reason why our culture has become this way. It’s an extreme barrier to empathy. And I argue that any judgment that allows one to de-value a human being is not only morally wrong, but logically as well. And morally wrong because it’s logically wrong.

    Sorry, I’m a little long-winded (:

    But, I posit this question: which should we judge a human being based on: the biological factors that were genetically pre-disposed without choice from the being, or the environmental factors that happened to affect them to make them who they are?

    Would you judge a person with a severe genetic learning disability for not being able to talk coherently?

    Likewise, don’t we all act and believe what we do because of the environmental factors that happened to affect us? Isn’t that why we see the trends we do across groups? These environmental factors are almost always impossible to trace, which I believe has led to this belief that people “deserve” the judgments that they receive. But all our actions and beliefs and thoughts were influenced by some environmental property. I grew up to be racist because that was the culture. I grew up to abhor racism because that was the culture. I grew up to abhor muslims because of 9/11 and the culture’s
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2012: I personally think it's very simple: we're genetically inclined to survive and we'll do that by any means. What means are chosen is down to the individual, but until we can prove free-will then all these "choices" we make may not be choices at all and may just simply be what our genetic code is telling us to believe. I do find, however, and this is purely from experience from a single life, that those who have more faith in themselves and more inner-peace, are more open to sharing and connecting with others. As a previous sufferer of anxiety I used to fear connection with others out of distrust. Then through self-examination and a whole world of experiences that are too much for me to bother writing right now (a lot of which came through studying Taijiquan, Taoism and Buddhism), I realised it was a lack of faith in myself. People flock in fear, politics breeds fear.
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2012: Well Cliff,
    If we observe the pattern of TED questions being asked .. Most of them which I responded to were based on global reform , peace and happiness . Here are few links which I felt connected to people :
    TED conversations and TED community help people communicate virtually . Well thats my opinion,
    Hope it helps.
  • Jun 21 2012: I hold yard sales and get to speak to my neighbors.
    I can't stop them on the street.
    But standing there considering a purchase
    they share their lives.
  • thumb
    Jun 20 2012: I dont think any answer here is wrong or comprehensive. It is an individual characteristic that encompasses everything stated so far.

    I do think there is one aspect to your question that hasnt yet been discussed. In referance to your question on the prevalence for online communication.It is addictive behaviour, as in classic pavlovian conditioning sense. We are excited at the prospect of communication when the bell or ring is sounded from the phone or email. We can also be visually conditioned via online communication by the "you have mail" or in TED'S case "such n such has answered your post!" This type of conditioning is very strong and is hard to recognise if you are not vigil in keeping aware of it.

    I am certainly not suggesting any conspiracy, it is merely modern living that we have all agreed to emerse and allowed to be immersed in...a culture of classical and suggestive conditioning via different mediums.

    I dont think this conditioning is any more prevalent than any other reason stated below. But I do feel it is part of it.

    Thank you for this interesting discussion.

    ...on a side note go ahead smile, talk and be happy doing so. You are the driver of your own bus, keep steering.
  • Jun 19 2012: Dear Miss Green. You raise an important issue. Connecting through social media is an easy way to create a role and image you can controll more then real contact and interaction in daily life off screen. Words, messages, videos and pictures are always a reflection on a screen.They create and serve goals. Thats part of a living digital life.And its not bad as long as they don't substitute or hide natural habbits when people meet off line. If natural curiosity and openess is not changed by "digital habbits" strangers can become friends when they can find a shared expression and understanding of eachothers vulnerabilities and desires.
  • Jun 18 2012: I sometimes don't discuss something important to close people because they are very familiar, and I already know, what they are going to say. But talking to strangers may bring a fresh, unbiased perspective.
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2012: Yes, too many times have I been the stranger listening to others at a bus stop pouring their deepest secrets to, but some of the closest (as in per amount of time in proximity) person's I know barely even speak to me about their own thoughts. When they do open up, it is usually something very superficial and leads to a superficial relationship.

    Sometimes we expect those closest to us to be secretive, so we can have an ongoing "mystery" to solve. This "mystery" is sometimes called "living a lie" and we all do or have done it. I find it strange how I can easily become an open book at any given time, but get very little reciprocity at the end of a conversation. Some say we must constantly gauge the trust-worthiness of others, but I want to challenge everyone to trust one another more and to try to "go with the flow", though without consenting to illogical situations.

    Trust is difficult, and as the band Green Day has said "...sing along to the age of paranoia...", and paranoia is in all of us, but some more than others. Personally, I see the prevalence of my own paranoia, so I try to reverse that by finding small things to change in my life. I try to expose myself to many situations in the world, so I won't feel as paranoid, but I have found that the more I saw, the more I could have feared, but I won't.

    As time passes our experiences begin to make more sense. When we continue living for a better less self-centric outlook of the world, I believe, we will begin to have healtheir flourishing relations with everyone. Trust will usually begin to build. Fear will be lifted through understanding. Excercise Empathy Everyday!

    Thanks for reading my thoughts. =)
  • thumb
    Jun 15 2012: I think that there are varied 'levels' of social interaction for a reason.

    Logistics is the first. If everyone stopped and talked to everyone they passed in the street, nothing would get done.

    When we ask "how are you", it's usually not meant to be an invitation to disclose your deepest secrets and feelings - it's social lubrication.

    Social networks have their function; support group, theirs; family, transactions, fleeting "hellos", lovers, friends, colleagues, interest groups and so on.

    They all have their functions and fulfill different people in different ways. I for one would become irritated if every conversation had to have a certain level of depth.

    In fact, you'd end up with a lot of 'facade' conversations where people aren't really listening to each other, merely going through the motions.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: To All:

    I apologize if it seemed as though I was projecting my own feelings, but I do want to mention that I really enjoy talking to strangers and not a person goes by without seeing a smile from me. However, I just want to employ the ideas of the TED community to shed light on what would happen if simple humanity was restored in the form of small talk, a smile, a wave, a stare for longer than 3 seconds. I love making new friends, but as I grow older I become scared and nervous from direct observation, of how hard it is to get to know people already in groups. I seek adventures, and love sharing personal stories and experiences, I just am curious as to what happens to people in their past or present that doesn't allow them the joy I get from getting to know the passerby.

    :) Thanks for sharing and have a great weekend!
    • thumb
      Jun 14 2012: Don't apologize for projecting feelings. We all do it. If you want a world where people talk to each other, smile and wave, DO IT. There is nothing to stop you. But just realize the reserve you see in other people is motivated by something, fear, experience, hurt. So to do what you seek, you will need to develop trust. In all honesty if someone in an urban setting walked up to me and started small talk I would check where my wallet is. Trust is not easy to develop in the three seconds you have.

      But it is worth it. Give it a try. If nothing else you will be known as 'the nice crazy lady in 4B.' I guarantee soon people you see every day will say HI to you first. My husband was like that. Knew all the ladies at the grocers, the bank tellers, the gas station attendants. He knew everyone and everyone knew him. He liked it that way.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: On one front, I think Nietzsche nails why with the famous quote "Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood". Fear of judgement is something that amplifies greatly the closer our relationship is with each other.

    On another front, it also seems to be a preferred outreach mechanism in our psyche. Our "real life" social networks tend to be much, much smaller than our potential online networks. The obvious limiting factor is geography - unless you have the means to travel, your localized social network is immediately limited by proximity and chance.

    From this I might develop 15 close personal friends, but only 1-2 of them will share in, say, a love for philosophy or even the same musical tastes. In some cases, I may literally find zero people in proximity that share in those areas of interest.

    From that, I think we subconsciously classify the people we know relative to our interests, and assign internal hierarchies to them. Then, when a social thought comes to mind, we internally decide if that information will be understood, or well received by any of the people in our immediate circles. If the answer is no...we look to other alternatives... a blog, a forum, twitter.. facebook... where the potential for finding people who will care and do care is much greater.

    If you remove technology from the equation for a moment - look at how pervasive things like keeping a personal journal or diary have been throughout time, you see a similar pattern. Not just for historical recording purposes - in many cases these were being used as an outlet for deeply personal or controversial thoughts ideas that they believed wouldn't be well received by their peers. In a sense, the diary represented a disconnected desire for the same basic need to be heard.

    Technology then seems to provide two services that are appealing - anonymity (even if people ridicule, it's not like you actually know them) and reach (hundreds share in my passion vs 1-2)
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: Lots of questions here. Let me start with the lack of connection between strangers. In overcrowding situations people withdraw from each other. I really like the work of John B. Calhoun and his theory of behavioral sink. I know it is rodent studies but there is some truth for humans as supported in later studies. So people withdraw from each other when there are simply too many people. It's a self preservation move. Look at your neighborhood. People live on top of, underneath of, next to, in back of... We withdraw to be safe. When we are once again safe, we can begin to connect as you witness during the TED events

    In less populated rural communities, the withdrawal is not as intense. People feel safer and connect more with their neighbors..

    Also I think you are projecting way too much on your neighbors. Sometimes a blank stare is a blank stare with nothing behind it. The creative writer in you projects apathy and judgment. Not a bad thing, but just don't present it as accurate.

    And finally, I am a hard core introvert. I don't speak to anybody unless i absolutely have to. Close community or not. I am much happier that way.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: You have asked several questions here. I will respond to a couple of them.
    I have no discomfort about speaking with people in public, though I expect any of us will often be misundertood when we speak. In terms of what keeps people from disclosing their ideas to others, of course the dislike of being judged is a big issue. Some people overestimate how severely judged they will be, but judged we often are. Many potenetial listeners do not live with a philosophy or perspective of assuming positive intent, for example. Prejudices are tiring to deal with, whether the prejudice is related to age, ethnicity, level of education...This discomfort makes people speak less and less authentically than they otherwise would.
  • Jul 12 2012: Should have added that the comment was to the question, not the person.
  • Jul 12 2012: Original
  • Jul 11 2012: Walter, who are you referring to?
  • Jul 11 2012: Walter, who are you referring to? I hope not to my friend Larissa.....
  • Jul 11 2012: Keep your mouth shut!
  • MR T

    • 0
    Jul 8 2012: Hi Please can you explain to me what that question means?
  • thumb
    Jul 3 2012: Barry! I am 23, but I asked this because I am ALWAYS the one to talk to people and I often get strange looks, sneers, and the like. I guess I jist want genuine conversation to always be attainable in public because in NY, it is much harder to come by. I am a journalist/writer by trade so it's in my nature to gravitate toward and initiate any interpersonal interactions. I love people, naturally, and understand that being social doesn't come natural to many people, but I posted this as a means to get a plethora of opinions, and I love and appreciate the feedback pouring in from the community. Thanks so much for reaching out -- now, extend a hand/eye/thought to reaching inside yourself and others to bring out their potential.

    As for those who seem upset or tickled by me asking if conversation should be mandatory..I think this digital age has done all of us a disservice. We must feel constantly whole and connected with our gadgets and it leads more and more people to feel less and less like interactions are necessary for happiness -- but, it's been proven that 4 hugs a day makes a most happy camper. I know, I know, don't hug strangers -- you don't know their motives, but friendly conversation can never hurt. Others have said they detest small talk and view talking to people as something hat should come naturally and not be forced, or that they have he luxury to choose whom they strike up a conversation with, and I respect whatever your feelings are, but I know you'll feel better after flashing a smile to a stranger...who knows, it could the love, friend, person with whom your supposed to share life with!
  • Jul 2 2012: In reading the response to my comment below, I would like know why you think creating time just for meaningful conversation instead of engaging only on a superfluous level is "disrespectful."

    Making conversation mandatory would only make it even less meaningful. True engagement with others is not something that can be forced.
    • thumb
      Jul 3 2012: True, it cannot be forced but it must begin somewhere.
  • Tone F

    • 0
    Jun 29 2012: How would this work? If you ask a stranger a question, would they be obliged to answer? Until the time when autonomy is overruled by apple's i-mind personality control matrix (predicted Summer 2032 capture), the idea of "mandatory" conversation is untenable, and a little worrying.
    It may make the world a better place knowing what's on everybody's minds. But after a while, would you really mind what other people are minding, minding about mindful mind related stuff? Or would you not pay it any mind?
  • Jun 26 2012: We are so open to strangers because these strangers can either choose to respond or ignore it. It is completely up to them. When you are face to face with someone, they are essentially stuck listening to you and you don't know if they have any interest in what you are saying.

    I love the neighborhood story above because I have felt that on occasion. Wondering what they think of me and why nNeighbor A gets invited to a social event and not Neighbor B. We choose to shutdown and keep people out because we are unsure if they will accept us and all our faults or whether they even care to listen about what we did today. We want acceptance but hate rejections. I believe that much of it has to do with growing up. We try to hard to fit in but get rejected so many times along the way that it becomes natural to become more guarded with what we say and who we say it to.

    Back to the neighborhood, best one I ever lived in, right when we were moving in the lady from across the street brought treats. The next day the guy beside us introduced himself and his family. A year later a family moved in and right away he began talking to us and became fast friends. There is not a day that goes by now that I regret having to move away from that neighborhood and wish I could find it again. Each one of them put themselves out there immediately and were accepted. We need to take a lesson from that area.
    • thumb
      Jun 29 2012: Hey Brad! What a great sharing! TED is a great place for acceptance for me.

      Would you consider just imitating the best of those who were perceived by you as welcoming until it feels natural (while only sharing what you do not mind hearing agiain elsewhere?) It might meet your needs and feel great to the others too.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2012: First, I am not sure totally what you are asking. I thought you had wanted to know generally why we don't talk to each other while out in public or at least acknowledge each other's existence (which really is happening more so due to technology, but you are too young to know any other way ;-)), but then in your second to the last paragraph, you are asking why "we our most painful secrets to strangers in stream-of-consciousness outbursts, but refuse to communicate wholly with the ones closest to us" which is what I don't understand. DO you mean the "strangers" to be those on the net as that is where the true anonymity lies compared to "those closest to us" which I thought you meant in our life, like our friends, or do you mean that we tend to tell those closest standing to us our secrets, which is then this is a totally different question, and really negates the first one.

    So I think I need some help as I seem to off base in my understanding compared to those who are responding.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2012: I think this phenomenon is part of what is happening here on TED Linda, don't you? No one in my own day to day life lets me chatter away this way and yet all of you beatiful TEDdies are patient with me and I can tell you how I feel because it is unlikely to change your behaviour towards me. It feels safer and without painful consequences.
      • Jul 3 2012: Speaking strictly for myself, the reason I read all these chatty comments is that I am desperate for interaction, especially with people that are completely outside of my normal context. I seek out the comments of foreigners and am often surprised and somewhat disappointed at how similar they are to us.
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2012: Where else could i learn of so many other people's earnest thoughts? I think Barry expressed a relevant truth here.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2012: I think that this phenomenon is not just something that happens with our neighbours. I'm sure we have all been in te situation of being in the same room as someone that you "kind of know", the friend of a friend that you met at a party. You look at them and they look at you but you aren't 100% sure of their name and they can't remember where they met you. So you both stand awkwardly in the room and the tension mounts until you can never say "hello". We paralyse the possibility of friendship because we fear looking foolish. I think the same is true of our neighbours. We all know that we should know them better and everyone of us is a little embarrassed that we don't.

    At a conference nobody is expected to know everybody else and so there is no tension. The total ignorance means that we feel happy to talk. However, transport yourself a few months from the conference and imagine you see a man on the tube. Is it Dave? ... or was it Simon?.... he isn't looking at you so perhaps you've got the wrong person entirely...
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2012: Nice point Thomas, sometimes there is safety in anonymity. I wonder why? No expectations?
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2012: when people believe they belong to the same group, relations are easy.

    who can believe he belongs to a group, when this group is an imaginary structure (democracy, money, history, etc.) ?

    TED is a group, but your neighbors are in another group.. you said it yourself, as to why anonymity or intimacy : a secret is the scar of a scare.. judgement and apathy "I secretly hope is false" just means it once was true.
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2012: Please share more Thomas.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2012: I will try ;-)

        I think sharing is a push-pull action between two entities.
        Group sharing is mostly imaginary, after all, what is my main group ? Humanity? France? Democracy? Mammals?

        I think a human "belongs" only to the group he believes he belongs.
        I think a group is a result : when the same thing is shared, one by one.
        When a group is imposed by law, the only thing one can share is judgment.
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2012: AS you might suspect, connection is fairly easy for me in most circumstances - because I choose to risk it. I look everyone in the eye as I walk on the street and smiile to indicate I see you and that you are 'worthy' just becasuse you are" and most people-, even those who have been scalded by painful human experiences generally respond to "being seen". Now remember I am in Niagara Falls-- not New York City and generally due to the size and configuration of the city people are fairly healthy and open. When I connect with someone who is mentally unwell or very needy, I have to make a decision about how much time I can invest at this moment and sometimes my vounteer work load is too heavy to admit anyone else - but I can indicate this kindly and we should all remember that most 'counselling' is simply paid friendship and that people have extremely low expectations of others. Yes, I am autonomous - sort of - we all need others.
    What I find it takes is living my values and being willing to endure the painful emotions for a few minutes again = if need be and most often they never materialize because it is not a one way street - the other feels these things too. It does take time though, and I am fortunate to have it most of the time - either because of the type of employment i had chosen or now due to my own illness ( which ironically makes me less attractive as a new friend = i think becasue I extuded health before and now my balance issues and illness may radiate less security within myself).
    Time is the one resource even rich people feel pressed for and this might explain what you have experienced. Unfortunately though, I have noticed that it is often those who are blessed with an abundance who are also the most self protective aka stingy!
  • thumb
    Jun 20 2012: I think until the 1900 the world was by and large a more of a collective place and it serve society better , larissa, I think the problem I see is that , society has fallen in love with the means of social exchange ipso facto we have become the means rather than the end: a money loving, media driven, sexually centered, everything on our laptop, news on the go, chat room addicted and food wasting world and this trend is what characterizes our society today; very recent: and it does not serve society better

    larissa I think whenever we asked the question WHY ? its value base and I dont have answers for that.But I know that intimacy is good, great as a matter of fact, I think it’s more collectivist, however, do we feel better, only if and when others approve of us? Are we ready to be who we are? But what is all that? To connect with others face to face without the facebook?

    In my world (social work) talking to people face to face is more therapeutic than any social media out get out there and touch somebody and make this world a better place, thanks larissa
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2012: Hi Larissa,
    Firstly you are lucky to be a part of TED community physically . We are a part of the TED community virtually (though it is nice , I am not so sure if it is great to be a part of TED physically). I really like the spirit of your question where you emphasize so much on communication . I too feel if there is a need for discussion and through discussions we can resolve a lot of problems existing .
    Sometimes we tend to be so casual with someone so close to us , that we hesitate so much to say things to them and we don't want to bother them or burden them with our problems . So I cannot say if conversations are necessary but discussions are definitely necessary and so far the TED community is doing a great job.
    Hope it helps

    • thumb
      Jun 21 2012: Hi Bharath
      Can you expand on your thought on connecting in ted community physically as a social network?
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2012: We give blank stares, often enough, to the glow of an object that illuminates light. I have a personal bias against new phones (the source), as well, referring to them as candy-coated-gingerbread-ice cream-sandwiches. With that said, it's like eye-candy for the blind. In other words, instead of smiling at the faces, we smile at our own reflection in/on the phone as a kind of gesture. Whereas some people legitimately gain something from this, for others it nullifies them, the ones who shrug at the concept. Narcissism. Then again, we live up to own standards. If you don't have an appearance to keep up, there's no sense keeping up appearances. The classic paranoid reduction is that people conspire against you, in which things done by accident seem intentional. I express myself intimately, as anonymously as possible. That's probably the big secret, or maybe I'm just imagining things.
  • thumb
    Jun 15 2012: peace love and afro grease :D
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: I personally believe that my closest friends and family members are more judgement than strangers that you don't know very well. l think people feel more comfort around strangers since they think they won't see them again or very often.