"But their actual experience was precisely the opposite. People randomly assigned to talk with a stranger enjoyed their trips consistently more than those instructed to keep to themselves. Introverts sometimes go into these situations with particularly low expectations, but both introverts and extroverts tended to enjoy conversations more than riding solo.
It turns out many of us wear ridiculously negative antisocial filters.... People underestimated how much they’re going to enjoy deeper conversations compared to shallower conversations. They underestimated how much they would like the person. They underestimated how much better their conversation would be if they moved to a more intimate communications media — talking on the phone rather than texting. In settings ranging from public parks to online, people underestimated how positively giving a compliment to another person would make the recipient feel.
We’re an extremely social species, but many of us suffer from... undersociality...."
The top-rated comment: "Notably missing is the fact that many women protect themselves from unwanted, insistent intrusion and comments, even the possibility of being followed and harassed, by immersing themselves in phones or books in public places."
Yes, Brooks says nothing about sex or gender at all. Also nothing about boredom or the fact that trains are noisy.
Nothing about race or religion either, as the third-highest-rated comment shows: "As a white, Christian male, David Brooks has no earthly idea how dangerous it may be for some of us to 'strike up a conversation' with strangers...."
Reading these comments, I'm finding the word "Your" in the headline obtuse and perhaps mean.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
If I was to strike up a conversation with a woman stranger in most public places, I would expect to be viewed with suspicion. Just the way of the world ...
I suspect that there’s something characteristically American about the assumption that one ought to be striking up conversations with strangers on trains. Does this happen in Japan, Sweden, Russia?
But please spare me the “women and minorities hardest hit” bullshit. Someone thinks Brooks’s race, sex and religion mean he has “no earthly idea” how others might feel? (Ooh, the danger!). How bigoted can one be? (Although they left out “cisgendered”).
This man sounds lonely himself.
Is David Brooks now Malcom Gladwell?
Why would having a conversation with a white Christian be dangerous?
Rrsafety. Let me take a stab at that. I live outside a large city and travel into the city. 2-3 times weekly and have acquaintances in the city. I have learned that conservatives should never engage in a political discussion because the attacks can be aggressive, even with an acquaintance. I can’t image what a casual conversation in a train would become if the other person suspected one were a conservative. Cities are political monoliths
Now do the experiment while wearing a MAGA hat, or a “defund the police” shirt.
Perhaps Brooks can determine where the breakdown in civil society lies.
Reading these comments, I'm finding the word "Your" in the headline obtuse and perhaps mean.
You don't expect Brooks to ride the subway himself, do you?
"good morning."
"You too."
.
.
.
"Take care."
"good bye."
Problem solved. Or maybe just don't hang around New Yorkers.
Are all the comments like that? Are they harping on the negative to counterbalance Brooks's Sunny Jim shtick? Both sides are a little bit right,and the truth lies in between. But Brooks is nearer to it than they are.
"...many women protect themselves from unwanted, insistent intrusion and comments, even the possibility of being followed and harassed, by immersing themselves in phones or books in public places."
I don't talk to anyone on the NYC subway, but I often strike up conversations with people sitting next to me at bars, men or women, if they're alone. I can't remember anyone ever rebuffing me. 99% of the time they're happy to chat, even if they've been burying themselves in their phones up to that point. Most people look at their phones or books more as a substitute for conversation than a barrier.
"As a white, Christian male, David Brooks has no earthly idea how dangerous it may be for some of us to 'strike up a conversation' with strangers...."
Alao, I'm pretty sure Brooks is Jewish, if that matters.
Now do the experiment while wearing a MAGA hat, or a “defund the police” shirt.
Larry David wore a MAGA cap in Curb Your Enthusiasm so that people would leave him alone.
coming in from my morning walk, I encounter my neighbor on her way out for hers.
"it's like soup out here. (75F, humidity 93%) Good to get out early."
"and rain nonstop after noon."
"Yep."
"I'll take anything as long as the storms stay away."
"isn't that the truth. have a good day!"
Just a slice of life for the comments section.
I have had very good conversations with strangers next to me on airplanes. Never, ever on subways.
There are certain columnists - David Brooks, George Will, Peggy Noonan - that really have nothing of interest to say anymore. They may be decent people and good writers, but it isn't the 80s anymore, and their observations are completely irrelevant. I can't make it through their columns. Who cares what these people think? They should rest on their laurels and retire already.
I'm finding the word "Your" in the headline obtuse and perhaps mean.
I see 'your' used this way in headlines a lot these days. It tends to strike me as presumptuous and condescending, but maybe it's how you get the attention of readers these days, by raising the subject they are most interested in, themselves.
Do the NYT commenters think that Brooks did this study himself?
In the southeast US, we strike up conversations with strangers all of the time. I don't know if it happens on public transportation, I don't use it much. Are trains quieter than buses? I wouldn't want to have to yell to converse.
A lot depends on who you are, who you are trying to talk to, and what the topic of conversation is. As a woman, I think I could tell a mother that she has cute children, but it might be viewed as wrong if a man said the same thing. He could probably get away with saying they are well-behaved. I could probably compliment someone on their clothing, where a man probably shouldn't - at least if the wearer is female. There's a narrow range of safe topics - the weather, maybe sports, complaints about public transportation. It was easier when there were only three big TV channels and the odds were good that the other person watched MASH or Dallas or whatever the top show was at the time. Mindless conversation has gotten harder.
Every passenger should be seated next to a dog.
I take it Brooks finally spoke to his chauffer.
I'm a laugh predator and an unfriendly stranger is just the dirt burrow in which my prey is hiding.
Do the NYT commenters think?
I've never felt unsafe from the person I had a conversation with. I have felt unsafe from the weirdos lurking. But I've not really conversed with people on the subway (London, Chicago, LA) or the bus. Especially not the bus. The buses carry the crazy.
A plane is a more natural place to have a conversation, although I don't really converse with seat mates any more. I'd just rather knit.
A great example of the filter, and maybe it cracking, was the first No Pants Subway Ride by Improv Everywhere - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofYSrHMYGEM
It took my whole life to realize how unwanted were my efforts to make conversation.
His social life is not what it should be because he is David Brooks.
"I've never felt unsafe from the person I had a conversation with."
Have you developed the sort of conversation style that conveys what I call "Don't let him get any ideas"?
David Sedaris' "Diary" books are chockful of interesting conversations he's had with strangers, most often drivers (he doesn't have a license).
Marcus THEOLDMAN
David Sedaris' "Diary" books are chockful of interesting conversations he's had with strangers, most often drivers (he doesn't have a license).
Marcus THEOLDMAN
It's extremely unlikely that David Brooks is a Christian. I initially read the sentence differently, thinking that the commenter was a White Christian male who feared starting up conversations with people because of his race and gender. That's not what the commenter meant, but most people, White Christian males very much included, are a little afraid of starting up conversations with strangers. Who wants to be accused of "mansplaining" or White patronage? I do understand the gender difference, though. There's also an age difference. Older people are less afraid of interacting with people they don't already know.
I often strike up conversations with strangers. My late father-in-law always did. Well, maybe not since he knew no strangers. I learned from him to be more engaged. Rick Steves promotes talking with locals when traveling. Human beings are, for the most part, decent, interesting in one way or another, and have a perspective worth getting.
There are situations where I wouldn’t do so but they are rare and most of us know instinctively when to be wary.
I would be interested in knowing what my social life "Should be", but I'm afraid the social (non)sciences can in no way tell me this. And Mr Brooks is even less likely to be able to tell me what my social life "should be".
My social life is what it is, and it's not the fault of a lack of speaking with strangers.
The first time I went to NYC (young man) I was very surprised at the open hostility that was put into general service, defensively. Creepy. And, a few weeks later, when I was in Houston looking for work, I was equally surprised at the gregariousness of people there. Geez, if you found yourself in line for anything, a conversation was going to be started. It wasn't off-putting at all, it was in a way the nicest possible introduction to Texas culture.
I agree, the 'Your' in the title is invasive and off-putting when used like this, but I guess it's a time-honored hook, isn't' it?
Well his former assistant (ahem) advertises herself as one. Probably unitarian
When my daughter and I go to the grocery store, the bag boy at the checkout will chat me up. I know the 20-something lad has no interest in me, but he can't work up the -- comfort? nerve? -- to talk directly to her.
At first she didn't notice. Now that she's older, she knows. The boys don't talk to her, though, so she has no need to respond.
"Reading these comments, I'm finding the word "Your" in the headline obtuse and perhaps mean."
The elite think it is their place to instruct others how to live.
David Brooks is Jewish. His wife converted to Judaism and keeps a kosher house. His son served in the IDF. The "Christian" remark is probably a leftist jab at Brooks. If you can find a single quote where Brooks directly quotes Jesus in his life, lets hear it.
The standard neocon talking point - in the early 2000s - was that Brooks would've been appointed Editor of national review in the 90s except for "antisemitism".
And then there's this from the New Yorker talking about his latest memoir:
Brooks describes a childhood in which a secular Jewish home life intersected with an Episcopal school and summer camp (“I grew up either the most Christiany Jew on the earth or the most Jewy Christian, a plight made survivable by the fact that I was certain God did not exist”), and, although he acknowledges that religious conviction seizes some converts suddenly and powerfully, his own experiences “have all been more prosaic and less convincing.”
Imagine talking to David Brooks for an hour on a train.
Yeah, me too.
I have met some of the most interesting people this way, in fact people so interesting that I will save them for my fiction and not give them away for free here, but thanks for reminding me about them. I don’t start conversations on airplanes, but I am open to them.
Let me begin by saying that I grew up in northern Alabama, in a culture where if you couldn't start up a conversation with a total stranger you were considered a social cripple. The culture must have rubbed off on me, because I've had some great conversations with strangers.
In NYC back in the late 90's, I was staying at a hotel that was the hotel used by the Maury Povitch show to put up its guests. I was at a breakfast buffet table with four other guys, and we were going around the table doing the "What are you in NYC for?" and one guy said "I'm here as a guest on Maury Povitch."
"Oh, what's the topic?"
I jump in: "GUYS WHO MURDER TOTAL STRANGERS FOR BREAKFAST!"
Everyone laughs, and the guy says something about "It's on women in traditionally male sports and I'm a big dirt biker." But, it did break the ice.
Another time, on a flight from Huntsville, AL to DC, I sat next to a guy who was reading James Jones "Thin Red Line", a biographical book about Jones' experience as a Marine in the WWII islands war. Starting from a discussion of my reading of the book, we then proceeded on to a variety of topics. When we landed in DC, a gentleman in the seat ahead of us turned to us and said "Gentlemen, thank you for the best conversation I've ever eavesdropped on".
And, speaking of cultural differences on the topic of talking to strangers, here's a good spot for a Fin joke:
How can you tell if you're talking to a Finnish extrovert?
When you talk to him, he stares at your shoes instead of his own.
There’s two kinds of conversations with women, the ones where she quickly mentions her husband or beloved boyfriend, and the ones where she lets slip she’s single. Both happen obliquely, usually.
What was the old advice about conversations? Don't talk about sex, politics or religion? I always found those to be sage words. Too bad we threw them out in the 60's.
Of course, the main reason I'm hesitant to talk to strangers is any more is that they invariably get too personal and launch into a tale of woe that's really a tale of shallow self pity. They tend to get offended when you don't respond with the appropriate amount of sympathy and I'm not going to fake it, so why even bother talking?
When will it finally be considered sexist to assume all men are predators? I don’t get these women who live in fear of striking up a simple conversation with a man. Do they have no powers of discernment? There’s a lot to be said about following your gut on who is probably safe and who is probably a weirdo. But seriously, it’s wrong to stereotype blacks as criminals, it’s wrong to stereotype Hispanics as illegals, so why do women still get to freely assume all men want to rape them and are merely one conversation away from being the next ripped-from-the-headlines story on Law & Order: SVU? I feel sorry for the world my 8yo son is growing up in. He’s still naive to most of this BS, but my heartbreaks for the day he finds out his penis and skin color are gonna cause people to think the very worst of him, no matter his character and heart.
"As a white, Christian male, David Brooks has no earthly idea how dangerous it may be for some of us to 'strike up a conversation' with strangers...."
Well, as a Jewish white Christian male. Brooks is a confusionist. I'm sure it would take more than one train ride to explain.
Anyway, the suggestion that it is not dangerous for a white Christian male to strike up a conversation, especially if the conversation involves the white Christian maleness itself, is a little . .. off.
Brooks purports to be simply reporting on empirical research that seems reasonable. Why fight it with snark?
Does Brooks write his own headlines?
He had me until he wrote "The fate of America...."
This is a great thread. Very good comments.
Except maybe mine.
I think it is a generational thing. I grew up in Chicago and took the city bus to/from school. I shared it with commuters who were mostly boomers in their thirties and WW2 generation people in their fifties.
The ww2’ers were far more gregarious. I think it is because they spent their formative early adulthood constantly being thrown into groups of strangers: the draft, college on the GI bill, the Great Migration to factory jobs, etc. Plus work in their era depended on face-to-face conversation. Even telephone calls were expensive back then. And they bought into the idea of the melting pot and assimilation, which you can’t do too well in silence.
The boomers, on the other hand, grew up in environments their ww2 parents tried to make as safe and stable as possible.They were already assimilated and didn’t feel much need to reach out to strangers - other than for the free love, of course. And their work depended less and less on conversation - if they even had work in the 70s with the stagflation and flight of industries.
It’s all relative, of course - the boomers seem like manic attention addicts compared to subsequent generations. But the general trend is toward more introversion. As a late-edge boomer, Brooks probably remembers ww2 people yakking it up in Toronto, NYC and Philly during his youth.
JSM
" Have you developed the sort of conversation style that conveys what I call "Don't let him get any ideas"?"
Ha! Yes!
Why your social life varies in time and space.
I used to strike up conversations on the subway during my commute, back when folks would bring real, actual books to read. I loved chatting about what drew a person to a particular book, and if it seemed intriguing, I'd look for it at the library. Nowadays between earbuds to drown out the incessant station announcements and noses buried in phones, it's just not worth it.
Once again, the sage advice that 'one size does not fit all' comes to mind.
I have had people tell me, sometimes many years later, that I was the first person to welcome them to a new job or group, and always somewhat to my surprise. I don't recall being anything but normally courteous.
As for guy-dom, in my experience we come with 'ideas' pre-packed so standoffishness is probably wise for attractive women. Then again, a beautiful woman can induce stunned oafishness if she is too forward . . .
Oh yeah, it never fails that any mention of Brooks results in cries that "He dumped his first wife for a hotter, younger woman, the cad!" Usually from old gallants, I always think, rarely from women.
If I have any interpersonal wisdom it is this: people like to talk about themselves.
While Eurailing around in '78, my wife and I met some very interesting people. One young American family turned out to be an Army lt and his wife and kids, new to a posting at VII Corps (?) HQ. He and I hit it off, and he insisted on giving us their contact info so we could keep in touch, but we didn't.
In Austria we were in a compartment with a Croatian (Yugoslav turned Austrian citizen) who had spent a few years working on the waterfront in New Joisey. He had the most interesting accent. Anyway, he too insisted that we take his contact info and meet his family if we got to Linz, but we didn't.
Again, I don't think we were anything but commonly courteous and conversational.
I dislike conversations on transit primarily because the kind of person who randomly strikes up conversations with random people on trains, planes, and busses is generally a bore and a chore to talk to, if he isn't also mad. The one exception is if we're all commiserating with each other about a transit problem, e.g. the train is massively delayed or has broken down. And there, the conversation usually develops either because someone complains to himself, and someone else responds, or someone has a question about what is going on, and someone else answers.
I suppose I wouldn't experience that selection effect if normal people randomly struck up conversations, which I think is what this was actually testing. A majority of taxi-driver or Uber-driver initiated conversations are okay.
Whenever someone, excluing crazy street people, has started conversation with me on a plane or bus, I've always enjoyed it. I've never had some egotistical bore or oddball hobby horse rider. Personally, I don't do that myself, because I'm not an extrovert. I can play the extrovert when i have to, but my normal everyday, after hours personality is introverted.
I'm damn lucky I got married to the right person. Of course, isn't that what most women want, a good listener?
BTW, someone upthread mentioned the South. I traveled in the deep south in the 1980s and 1990s and yep, those Southern boys (and gals) can carry on a conversation. Especially, when I got out of the big cities.
Friendly, polite, interesting, and intelligent conversation. Wonder if that's changed.
Not interested in a conversation with strangers, I always seem to end up with Del Griffith.
There's another good reason people on subways don't strike up a conversation -- you have absolutely no idea when the other person is getting off so there's no point in settling in and getting into a chat. This hasn't changed since the beginning of subways. When I lived in NYC about fifty years ago people occupied themselves with newspapers, books and magazines. Isn't that why they had newsstands in subway stations? Is that still a thing now that people have smart phones? IDK
That said, when I am traveling alone I am friendly on trains and planes, on the check out line in the grocery store, etc., but find that many people are fearful of strangers so if people are not immediately friendly I stay in my lane. Where I live many people make eye contact and say hello. That isn't true in other places. When I traveled in Europe in the mid 70's I met a lot of people and had a very good time. I met and traveled with some Germans in Crete and later visited their village in Germany. I had some great adventures in Florence and also Amsterdam. I stayed with a family in Santorini for a couple of weeks. Have things changed? IDK
In the digital world life is somewhat different and I have no clue what is going on. Probably BS. I have an Instagram account and I get followed by men who have few few if any posts and a couple of very sexy women who are obviously looking to meet someone. What's weird is that they generally look much younger than me. So I'm like, WTF? Out of curiosity I followed back a couple of times just to see if I was misjudging the situation and if they just wanted a friendly conversation, but sure enough they were looking for instant "romance." People can be very bizarre and I definitely don't want to find out how bizarre. Kind of scary and creepy online with strangers unless they are clearly legit.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा