INCAPABLE OF SMALL TALK
In other relationships, we encounter the opposite of this cliché dominated communication. With every-thing that is good, abuses exist at both extremes. Some people abuse the first level of intimacy by using clichés too much, while others abuse it by using cliché communication too little or refusing to engage in small talk at all. This kind of behavior is equally harsh, abrupt, rude, and insensitive. Imagine a person incapable of small talk. You probably don’t have to imagine; you probably know someone who fits this description. They seem inca-pable of being cordial and polite, incapable of regular social interactions. They may be abrupt and arrogant in their manner, quiet and distant to all onlookers, and when they do speak they come off as harsh, be-cause they don’t ease into a conversation. They cut straight to the topics and big issues (or at least, what they consider to be the big issues), which usually re-volve around their own area of expertise. If you try to call them on this, they will explain that they simply cannot “humor fools” and that nothing is gained from small talk.
We must ask: Does this attitude and approach en-courage intimacy? The answer is, of course, a re-sounding no. In fact, such people in many ways resemble the teenager whose answer to everything is “Whatever.” These are often men and women of tow-ering intellect, but they hide behind that intellect. Others who employ this tactic are not intellectual giants, but create some other mask to assert their superiority. Why? They have all the same reasons any of us do for avoiding intimacy, but mostly, they fear it, though it is the one thing they cannot live happily without.
It is this fear that drives them from the world of others and into the world of self. And in that world of self they begin the narcissistic obsession and eventually convince themselves that others are boring and a waste of time.
As the years pass in this world of self, they become indifferent to the interests and needs of others, and incapable of the simplest of human communications and considerations. They may claim that their genius prevents them from thinking about the trivial, because their minds are constantly occupied with grander and loftier ideas, but the truth is they lack the common decency to ask another human being: How are you? How was your day? What did you do? and the empathy to listen and care.
They will tell you that they are simply incapable of small talk, as if they were born this way. The truth is they have chosen to be incapable of small talk. The bottom line is that such people are scared to death. They may seem awkward in social situations, unable to engage with people, but this disposition is the fruit of years of effort. We are all able to make people feel welcome and accepted, by taking an interest in them. We become good at this the same way we become good at anything, with practice. We all find ways to avoid intimacy. Some of those ways are highly sophisticated, while others are sim-ple and transparent. But the effect is the same: we continue to yearn for our fill of intimacy.
FACTS: THE SECOND LEVEL OF INTIMACY
WHO’S THAT HIDING BEHIND THE FACTS?
The second level of intimacy is the level of facts. At this level, we tend to focus our communication on the facts about our lives and the world we live in. These facts could include everything from the hap-penings of our day to the events we read about in the newspaper. We stick to the facts in the second level. They are mundane, and in most cases self-evident, so they generally don’t create conflict. As a result, we perceive the facts to be very safe; as we perceive clichés to be safe. What do they keep us safe from? The daunting idea of intimacy. If a relationship is confined to this second level of intimacy, we talk about the weather, sports, how the stock market is performing, and what we did today. These conversations tend to be in staccato form. The questions and the answers are normally very brief, usually just a series of one-liners. We simply ask: “How was your day?” “Fine!” “What did you do?” “I went to work. At lunchtime I went to see Dr. Jones about my knee. I saw Mrs. Miller at the bank and stopped by to see Grandma. Did you know her cat has run away?” The first question and answer (“How was your day?” “Fine!”) was on the cliché level and was used to initiate a conversation. This is the proper use of the first level of intimacy. The second question (“What did you do?”) could have met with a clichéd answer, “Same old stuff,” which would have shut down the conversation. Perhaps not immediately, but most people will only ask so many questions, and re-ceive so many clichéd answers, before they give up their hope of a conversation. It is in this way that we so often use clichés to stonewall intimacy. But in the example at hand, the speaker leads into the second level of intimacy by replying to the question (“What did you do?”) with a litany of facts. The facts were impersonal, but this conversation did progress be-yond the mere exchange of clichés and into the sec-ond level of intimacy.
It is also important to note that this reply ends with a question (“Did you know her cat has run away?”), opening the opportunity for further discus-sion. Nonetheless, this conversation is simply a recitation of impersonal facts and observations. The facts would have been personal if she had said, “I went to work, and I am really excited about this new project I am working on.” This is no longer just a statement of impersonal fact, as it reveals how she feels about work. “At lunchtime I went to see Dr. Jones about my knee. She keeps telling me it’s healing. But it’s been six months, and I don’t know if she knows what she’s talking about.” This statement moves beyond the facts, revealing something about the speaker through her opinion. “I saw Mrs. Miller at the bank; we only need twelve hundred dollars now before we can take that cruise.” This tells you something about the speaker’s hopes and dreams. “And did I tell you I saw Grandma? She is dis-traught because her cat ran away. She was so sad and I felt so helpless.” This goes far beyond mere facts, telling you that the speaker is concerned about oth-ers and is capable of being empathetic. The second level of intimacy (facts), like its prede-cessor (clichés), is very useful in forming an initial acquaintance with a person, but if we remain in the level of nonpersonal facts for too long, the rela-tionship becomes stale. After a while, the recital of impersonal facts becomes boring and monotonous, and all great relationships are dynamic collabo-rations. Far from being boring and monotonous, they are creative and exciting. We all have relationships in which we commu-nicate exclusively with impersonal facts. Your rela-tionship with a financial adviser may be strictly pro-fessional, confined to the pleasantries and facts of the first two levels of intimacy. In some relationships that is appropriate, but in our high-level relationships that is deeply inappropriate. Are any of your high-level relationships being held hostage by impersonal facts? The spoken word is powerful, and so is the writ-ten word. Sometimes our written appreciation can have an enormous impact on the people we love. Did you ever write your parents a letter telling them how much you appreciated all they have done for you? When was the last time you wrote your spouse a love letter? At every moment a relationship is being driven by positive energy or negative energy. Expressing our appreciation is one way we can inject a very positive energy into our relationships. The same truth also has powerful applications in the workplace, where appreciation is more valuable than gold, especially if you are managing other peo-ple. It stands to reason that employees who feel appreciated are going to be more dedicated to their work than employees who don’t feel appreciated. ESCAPING THE PRISON OF LONELINESS
When it comes to relationships and intimacy, the things that matter most are those that reveal some-thing about you. Intimacy is gained through the process of self-revelation. The first two levels of inti-macy (facts and clichés) are important and useful, but only if they are the precursors of something greater and deeper. The first two levels of intimacy are very lonely places. If we are unwilling to move beyond clichés and then facts, we build for ourselves a prison of loneliness. There may be plenty of people around, but inside we feel desperately lonely. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, in the first two levels of inti-macy we are plagued by a desperate yearning to know and be known, to love and be loved. We escape this prison of loneliness and move from the second to the third level of intimacy by moving the focus of our conversations from imper-sonal facts to personal facts. This is the bridge that leads to the third level of intimacy and beyond, but you have to be willing to move past discussions of the weather, sports, and the stock market, to reveal something of yourself. If you are unwilling to tell me something about who you are and what moves and motivates you, then, quite frankly, you cannot tell me anything I can’t read in a book. You become boring and uninter-esting, not because you are boring and uninteresting, but because you refuse to reveal yourself. If you are willing to reveal yourself, then you’ve got my atten-tion. If you are willing to share something about you, I’m all ears, because that is something I cannot learn from a book. It is people and personalities that ele-vate facts and make conversations dynamic and interesting. the second level of intimacy can be used to develop intimacy or destroy it. The choice is yours. The impersonal facts that are abundant in our lives are supposed to be a warm-up for deeper levels of intimacy. The impersonal facts should lead us to dis-cuss how those facts affect us in deeply personal ways. The impersonal facts should lead us to reflect on our opinions, our hopes and dreams, our feel-ings, our faults, fears, and failures, and our real and legitimate needs. But too often we use these imper-sonal facts to block the possibility of intimacy. The most devastating form of loneliness is not to be without friends; rather, it is to be surrounded by friends and never to be truly known. Let’s face it, nobody ever became truly intimate with another person by discussing the weather, sports, or the stock market. Some may argue that these discussions were the beginning of a great inti-macy, and that is quite possible, but let’s keep in mind that intimacy is the process of mutual self-revelation. We yearn to know and be known. Un-like the first level of intimacy the second level has the potential to reveal a great deal about a person, but our tendency is to focus predominantly on nonper-sonal facts in this second level. Facts are easy and, like clichés, are perceived as safe, especially if they are of the impersonal variety. But facts can be as trivial and superficial as a dis-cussion of the weather, or as deep and self-revelatory as a discussion of one’s childhood.
The second level of intimacy can be the beginning of extraordinary communication between two people, or it can be used as a substitute for communication when one or both parties have lost interest in the relationship. Facts can be personal or impersonal. Once again, the choice is ours We perceive the first and second levels of intimacy as safe; because we fear true intimacy. The level of clichés and the level of facts are considered very safe because they deal with objective facts and mean-ingless clichés. We think they are safe because they reveal nothing about ourselves. But there is no re-ward without risk, and the safety of the first two lev-els of intimacy depends on their being shallow and superficial. In using them to avoid real intimacy, we lock ourselves in the prison of loneliness. In this self-created prison of loneliness we grow increasingly frustrated, for we never cease to yearn for the one thing we have chosen to avoid: intimacy. Are you sharing facts in order to further reveal yourself, or are you hiding behind the facts, sharing them in order to avoid sharing yourself?
