I’ll actually second Sniffnoy on that, but I concede I’m unusual.
First, I often don’t want to interact with people, and I’ve noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I’m not interested in interacting. Related to tat, I’ve found people who ask that specific question are often very likely to get upset when I refuse to engage them. Basically, it makes me feel objectified—you’re forcing me to engage with you socially without my consent. (I am aware that “non-consensual social interaction” is something my culture doesn’t seem to normally object to)
Second, as Sniffnoy pointed out, it’s rejecting my answer. I’ll often say “good” because I’m dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don’t want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you’re unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn’t your business and that I didn’t really want to be thinking about.
Third, it often reads out very much as a “stock response”, not something that’s genuinely attempting to engage me as an individual. “How are you doing?” is fine as a stock question, because I have a stock answer. However, in this case, I don’t have a stock answer, so it’s forcing me to engage you without you actually putting any effort in to engaging me.
All in all, it basically reads out as “I’m going to actively force you to engage with me, even though I’m unwilling to put any effort in to reading you or understanding you”.
(I should clarify that this is a minor peeve, just one that comes up often enough that I have a cached analysis that is fairly in-depth by now. I realize that a detailed critique like this could be read as overly hostile, and that is not at all my intent :))
I didn’t read you as hostile at all! I hope you don’t mind if I return the critique, since I have the corresponding counter-peeve. :)
I’ve noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I’m not interested in interacting.
Hmm… so you have heard that specific question before? One of the things I liked about it is that I have never heard it before; it seemed unusual and original. I could understand someone not liking it if they had heard it many times.
As far as being bad at reading cues, two other possibilities are a) they are good at reading the cues, but still interested in interacting with you and trying to find a way to make the interaction work; or b) your cues are more ambiguous than you think.
it’s rejecting my answer. I’ll often say “good” because I’m dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don’t want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you’re unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn’t your business and that I didn’t really want to be thinking about.
Contrast my own case, which is that I’ll say “good” because I suspect the other person isn’t actually interested in an honest answer, and giving a fully honest answer might be imposing. Pressing further allows for the possibility of actually being honest and genuinely connecting. If you’re not interested, you don’t have to lie or share something you’re not comfortable with; you could just say “Sorry, not in a good mood for talking now.”
This is why I said the signals you are sending may be ambiguous, in that acting reserved can be a) because you aren’t interested, or b) because you are interested, but aren’t sure that the other person is interested and don’t want to impose.
If it’s an obviously super-brief pro-forma “conversation”, like banter with a waitress, then I see why ruhe47 ’s approach works: it shows that you’re more interested than average, but the other person has an excuse (other customers!) to walk away rather than lay out their whole life or be rude, so it’s not trapping them into a demand for a long answer.
But if someone were to say “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” in a more extended-conversation setting, like a party, then I would agree with Sniffnoy in disliking the proposed question. Without such an obvious natural time limit, that open-ended reflection-demanding question creates too much of an interrogation atmosphere. It’s like you’re going to stand there and poke at their life until you’ve heard enough.
My feeling is that the right way to start an extended conversation with someone is to ask them a question that invites them to remember, specifically remember something that’s fun for them and likely halfway interesting to you.
Toy example from my own life: “I’ve got Netflix streaming now, and I can’t decide what to watch. When you think about TV shows or movies that you’ve really enjoyed, which ones do you think of first?”
It sounds silly, like most conversation-with-strangers openings (“How are you?” is pretty silly in its own way, when you think about it), but it’s easy to answer and it invites discussion of something the other person has fun thinking about. Also it puts the other person in the position of being capable of helping you, as opposed to being evaluated or judged by you, which is a much friendlier subtext.
And hey, I really do need the recommendations. :)
But ruhe47 offered up their technique simply in the context of pro-forma ‘conversations’ like when you’re buying something at a store counter, and in that environment I can totally see how it would work. Especially since when you’re clerking or table-serving, you’re spending hours helping people yet not being engaged with as an interesting human being, so a sign of more genuine interest (without a real obligation to raespond more than you feel like) should be pretty positive.
Several reasons. For one, it’s challenging my response for no apparent reason. I answered precisely how I intended to! Which may not be the same as answering truthfully but it’s the best you’ll get out of me in such a case. It seems to me to contain an implicit challenge that things aren’t actually good and I’m just saying that because it’s conventional. Which may well be the case, but if things are indeed bad, I am not about to start talking about it to an arbitrary stranger, nor do I have appreciate having it or the obviousness of it thrown in my face like that. And if that things are good then it seems to be accusing me of telling falsehoods when I’m not, which is not exactly complimentary either.
It isn’t challenging the response. It is asking for more information. I accept the answer of “good” and then ask for elucidation. The follow up question (“really good or just sorta’ good?”) is predicated on my acceptance of their response. If I were to continue the questioning beyond the initial request for more detail it would definitely be intrusive, especially coming from an arbitrary stranger.
If you were to respond to my follow-up question with anything other than a positive reaction I would not attempt to engage you in any meaningful way beyond that. It hasn’t happened yet, but it is entirely possible that it would!
Edit: I owe you an apology. After a little bit of thought (I posted shortly after you without giving what you said the consideration it deserves) it definitely could be construed as questioning your initial response of “good”, which would be rude. I just had my understanding improved a bit. I hadn’t even considered it that way (even after you spelled it out)!
Thought—warning, unreliable memory ahead—perhaps the problem is that I often do try to somehow answer the question in the first place, so if I simply reply “Good”, that’s already something of a “don’t-bother-me”. But I suppose other people couldn’t be expected to recognize that.
Why? I would guess you are unusual in that respect.
I’ll actually second Sniffnoy on that, but I concede I’m unusual.
First, I often don’t want to interact with people, and I’ve noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I’m not interested in interacting. Related to tat, I’ve found people who ask that specific question are often very likely to get upset when I refuse to engage them. Basically, it makes me feel objectified—you’re forcing me to engage with you socially without my consent. (I am aware that “non-consensual social interaction” is something my culture doesn’t seem to normally object to)
Second, as Sniffnoy pointed out, it’s rejecting my answer. I’ll often say “good” because I’m dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don’t want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you’re unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn’t your business and that I didn’t really want to be thinking about.
Third, it often reads out very much as a “stock response”, not something that’s genuinely attempting to engage me as an individual. “How are you doing?” is fine as a stock question, because I have a stock answer. However, in this case, I don’t have a stock answer, so it’s forcing me to engage you without you actually putting any effort in to engaging me.
All in all, it basically reads out as “I’m going to actively force you to engage with me, even though I’m unwilling to put any effort in to reading you or understanding you”.
(I should clarify that this is a minor peeve, just one that comes up often enough that I have a cached analysis that is fairly in-depth by now. I realize that a detailed critique like this could be read as overly hostile, and that is not at all my intent :))
I didn’t read you as hostile at all! I hope you don’t mind if I return the critique, since I have the corresponding counter-peeve. :)
Hmm… so you have heard that specific question before? One of the things I liked about it is that I have never heard it before; it seemed unusual and original. I could understand someone not liking it if they had heard it many times.
As far as being bad at reading cues, two other possibilities are a) they are good at reading the cues, but still interested in interacting with you and trying to find a way to make the interaction work; or b) your cues are more ambiguous than you think.
Contrast my own case, which is that I’ll say “good” because I suspect the other person isn’t actually interested in an honest answer, and giving a fully honest answer might be imposing. Pressing further allows for the possibility of actually being honest and genuinely connecting. If you’re not interested, you don’t have to lie or share something you’re not comfortable with; you could just say “Sorry, not in a good mood for talking now.”
This is why I said the signals you are sending may be ambiguous, in that acting reserved can be a) because you aren’t interested, or b) because you are interested, but aren’t sure that the other person is interested and don’t want to impose.
If it’s an obviously super-brief pro-forma “conversation”, like banter with a waitress, then I see why ruhe47 ’s approach works: it shows that you’re more interested than average, but the other person has an excuse (other customers!) to walk away rather than lay out their whole life or be rude, so it’s not trapping them into a demand for a long answer.
But if someone were to say “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” in a more extended-conversation setting, like a party, then I would agree with Sniffnoy in disliking the proposed question. Without such an obvious natural time limit, that open-ended reflection-demanding question creates too much of an interrogation atmosphere. It’s like you’re going to stand there and poke at their life until you’ve heard enough.
My feeling is that the right way to start an extended conversation with someone is to ask them a question that invites them to remember, specifically remember something that’s fun for them and likely halfway interesting to you.
Toy example from my own life: “I’ve got Netflix streaming now, and I can’t decide what to watch. When you think about TV shows or movies that you’ve really enjoyed, which ones do you think of first?”
It sounds silly, like most conversation-with-strangers openings (“How are you?” is pretty silly in its own way, when you think about it), but it’s easy to answer and it invites discussion of something the other person has fun thinking about. Also it puts the other person in the position of being capable of helping you, as opposed to being evaluated or judged by you, which is a much friendlier subtext.
And hey, I really do need the recommendations. :)
But ruhe47 offered up their technique simply in the context of pro-forma ‘conversations’ like when you’re buying something at a store counter, and in that environment I can totally see how it would work. Especially since when you’re clerking or table-serving, you’re spending hours helping people yet not being engaged with as an interesting human being, so a sign of more genuine interest (without a real obligation to raespond more than you feel like) should be pretty positive.
Several reasons. For one, it’s challenging my response for no apparent reason. I answered precisely how I intended to! Which may not be the same as answering truthfully but it’s the best you’ll get out of me in such a case. It seems to me to contain an implicit challenge that things aren’t actually good and I’m just saying that because it’s conventional. Which may well be the case, but if things are indeed bad, I am not about to start talking about it to an arbitrary stranger, nor do I have appreciate having it or the obviousness of it thrown in my face like that. And if that things are good then it seems to be accusing me of telling falsehoods when I’m not, which is not exactly complimentary either.
Edited: See the bottom section!
It isn’t challenging the response. It is asking for more information. I accept the answer of “good” and then ask for elucidation. The follow up question (“really good or just sorta’ good?”) is predicated on my acceptance of their response. If I were to continue the questioning beyond the initial request for more detail it would definitely be intrusive, especially coming from an arbitrary stranger.
If you were to respond to my follow-up question with anything other than a positive reaction I would not attempt to engage you in any meaningful way beyond that. It hasn’t happened yet, but it is entirely possible that it would!
Edit: I owe you an apology. After a little bit of thought (I posted shortly after you without giving what you said the consideration it deserves) it definitely could be construed as questioning your initial response of “good”, which would be rude. I just had my understanding improved a bit. I hadn’t even considered it that way (even after you spelled it out)!
Thought—warning, unreliable memory ahead—perhaps the problem is that I often do try to somehow answer the question in the first place, so if I simply reply “Good”, that’s already something of a “don’t-bother-me”. But I suppose other people couldn’t be expected to recognize that.
This makes sense in a context where you are actually trying to convey information. Absent that, I’m not sure it does.