{"id":58846,"date":"2022-02-06T19:50:10","date_gmt":"2022-02-06T23:50:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=58846"},"modified":"2022-02-17T10:25:08","modified_gmt":"2022-02-17T14:25:08","slug":"benefits-of-small-talk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/benefits-of-small-talk\/","title":{"rendered":"The 3 (Often Overlooked) Benefits of Small Talk"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Do you find small talk awkward and uncomfortable? What are the benefits of small talk? What makes small talk different from friendly conversations? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his book Games People Play, <\/em>Dr. Eric Berne analyzes human social interactions in order to better understand why people act the way they do. One subject he went into detail on was that of small talk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep reading to learn about the benefits of small talk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Small Talk: Various and Variable<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Before we can discuss the benefits of small talk (or what Berne calls “pastimes”), we need to distinguish what makes small talk different from conversations. According to Eric Berne, pastimes<\/em> are casual social interactions <\/em>of all shapes and sizes. There\u2019s a wide variety of pastimes, and they further vary by culture. People mainly engage in pastimes at events like parties, weddings, or company social gatherings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Berne defines a pastime as a series of reciprocal exchanges focused around a topic<\/strong>\u2014cars, annoying neighbors, celebrity gossip, relationships, and so on. So you can also think of these as polite, topical conversations: small talk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: The notion of pastimes, or small talk, is a useful way of pointing out a specific kind of social behavior. At the same time, it\u2019s also fairly deterministic: Berne suggests that most of our behaviors fall into one of a handful of categories, and within each of those we just act from scripts. Compare this to human language: While it\u2019s true that we use some set phrases, using language is a highly creative endeavor. We mix and match words, frequently creating expressions we\u2019ve never before spoken. If our primary tool of communication is so complex and free-form, does it make sense that our social behaviors, which are mediated by language, would be simple and predetermined? After all, culture evolves over time<\/a>\u2014and the small talk we engage in today is very different from that of Berne\u2019s time.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are plenty of contemporary examples of small talk\u2014\u201cHave You Seen This Meme\u201d and \u201cMidterms are Killing Me\u201d are common among modern college students, and the ravers among them might play \u201cWhat a Trip, Man\u201d or \u201cOne-Up My Hangover.\u201d On-the-grind millennials might play \u201cWhat\u2019s Your Side Hustle<\/a>,\u201d while young parents favor \u201cKids, Am I Right?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Product of His Time<\/strong>

A number of Berne\u2019s pastimes (and later his games) have aged poorly. In his writing, men engage in \u201cGeneral Motors\u201d and \u201cMan Talk,\u201d while women play \u201cWardrobe,\u201d \u201cKitchen,\u201d and \u201cLady Talk.\u201d It\u2019s not hard to imagine these stereotypes, but to suggest that everyone\u2019s activities fit into such cleanly segregated categories is both reductionist and prejudiced. 

Psychology has a long history of sexist bias<\/a>. A particularly illustrative example is the idea of hysteria\u2014think \u201cshe\u2019s just crazy and emotional\u201d\u2014a hold-over from ancient Greece and Egypt that remained in the DSM through the 1950s. And given that Freud, a man not known for his sexual egalitarianism<\/a>, influenced Berne, we have good reason to read his descriptions with a critical eye.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Informal rituals mark the start and end of many types of small talk. For example, you\u2019ll greet your friends before jumping into some activity, and the goodbye niceties also follow ritual patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Berne states that small talk gets \u201cadaptively\u201d programmed, though he doesn\u2019t clarify what this means. We can infer that the programs for small talk also come from cultural influences, but can change more flexibly. Small talk changes based on who\u2019s involved, going in various directions like a flowchart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, say you\u2019re joking about your kids with a couple friends, and a child-free acquaintance comes to join in. Now the conversation will either change to accommodate her, or she\u2019ll find some creative way to relate (maybe her cat is her<\/em> baby). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Berne states that we adapt our interactions like this to provide all those involved with an opportunity to be seen and heard. It isn\u2019t quite egalitarian, though: You have to earn that recognition. For example, think of how the \u201cfunny guy\u201d usually gets more attention than the quieter friends of a group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Berne\u2019s lack of clarity on \u201cadaptive programming\u201d may speak to the shortcomings of his reductionist approach. Not all phenomena have discrete, sharp boundaries<\/a>, and this nebulosity can confound the \u201cdissection\u201d approach of most science. 

While physical sciences, like geology, deal with concrete realities, the human psyche famously defies clear, complete description. In leaving \u201cadaptive programming\u201d unexplained, Berne may be indicating one edge of his theory\u2019s explanatory power. Building a concrete, precise model of dynamic, changing social interaction might be impossible\u2014similarly to how we can\u2019t precisely describe the structure of a cloud\u2014because there are too many variables to account for: Thousands of personality variations, numerous pastimes, innumerable contexts in which they could take place, and so on. So, in short, Berne leaves it at, \u201cit\u2019s complicated.\u201d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Benefits of Small Talk<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

At its most basic, small talk is an enjoyable way to use time and provide social contact for everyone involved. However, it also serves two more specific purposes, which we\u2019ll cover below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Small Talk Helps Us Find New Relationships<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Berne explains that small talk helps you find potential partners for closer relationships<\/strong>. Your small talk reflects your games\u2014many types of small talk are simpler, more socially acceptable versions of games. So the people whom you mesh with in more casual interaction are likely to be good partners for closer relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This filtering is an unconscious process<\/a>. While you\u2019re at a social gathering, Berne says, your child intuitively sorts through the people you meet. You\u2019ve probably experienced this\u2014you go to a party, you meet someone new and interesting, and find you\u2019d be happy to see them again. This is your child at work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Berne also states that sometimes the adult handles this process. For example, if you\u2019re a strategic person consciously looking for a romantic relationship or a useful business connection, you may more consciously look for a match, instead of leaving it to intuition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: It\u2019s a common idea that \u201cwe date our parents”, or in Berne\u2019s terms, \u201cwe date those who play our games.\u201d In contrast, evolutionary psychology holds that we pick partners based on who will best pass on strong genes<\/a>. In this view, physical attractiveness, fitness, and intelligence play a larger role. Neither view seems to contradict the other, though, and considering both gives a more holistic view of the process. For example, you might filter potential partners through both sets of criteria: First, do they satisfy your standards for evolutionary fitness? This narrows it down a bit, but still leaves a large pool to select from. Considering who meshes with your games narrows it down even further, acting as a secondary filter that ensures you meet your psychological needs, and not just evolutionary drives.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Small Talk Reinforces Our Beliefs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Think of how in-group conversations typically create a filter bubble: Everything discussed obeys the tribal group\u2019s sanctions and taboos, and everybody (typically) validates each other. Small talk often works a good deal like this, according to Berne.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You engage in small talk from a \u201cposition.\u201d<\/strong> This is a deeply held belief that usually concerns some broad, existential stance or major issue\u2014\u201cBig government is bad\/good,\u201d \u201cPeople are basically moral\/immoral,\u201d \u201cChildren are great\/awful.\u201d That belief determines the small talk you engage in. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, the way you feel about that issue\u2014the emotional aspect of your belief\u2014determines how you show up when undertaking small talk. For example, say you believe that \u201ccoffee is superior to tea.\u201d Depending on your emotional style, you\u2019ll enact a particular character in casual conversations about that topic\u2014maybe you\u2019re an espresso maniac<\/em>, or a coffee purist,<\/em> or even an aggressive bean evangelist <\/em>amongst your tea-drinking friends. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Later we\u2019ll refer to positions as stances, <\/em>as in your point of view<\/em>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four Fundamental Positions<\/strong>

In a 1962 article in Transactional Analysis<\/a> Bulletin<\/em>, Berne introduced the concept of \u201cokayness\u201d to describe being basically at peace with your existence. To be OK is to respect yourself and others, and to act fairly.

The psychiatrist Thomas Harris further developed Berne\u2019s theory of positions in his 1967 book I\u2019m OK<\/em>\u2014You\u2019re O<\/em>K<\/a>. Harris outlined four fundamental \u201clife positions\u201d<\/a> that develop in childhood:

I\u2019m OK, You\u2019re OK 
I\u2019m OK, You\u2019re not OK
I’m not OK, You\u2019re not OK
I’m not OK, You\u2019re OK<\/em>

With this model, proponents of Transactional Analysis hoped to establish a set of fundamental beliefs from which all people\u2019s scripts developed. Depending on your earliest experiences, you would end up with one of the four life positions\u2014and in theory, all of your behavior would be rooted in that deepest belief.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Your friends can then receive your act in one of two ways, according to Berne. Both serve to reinforce your existing belief:<\/p>\n\n\n\n