Every person is a unique instance. It is factually impossible to have two versions of the same exact person. Close people share characteristics and these spread literally through naming and by inference from what they are constantly exposed to. A programmer will sound like any other programmer unless the person distinguishing is also a developer.
This quality trickles down to ordinary conversations. Scientists make jokes over lunch hour which we barely get to understand. Banter between professionals almost sounds like a symposium. Sometimes passions leaks into the conversations but the catch is; they have strong ties to their occupations. Engineers love cars whilst most mathematicians do music and chess.
Enter other unusual conversationalist. The best of them are purist; they will always bend toward a topic. Then there are the philosophers. This particular group doesn’t seem to make sense to most people. I find myself in a group like this. An engineer and a theologian might not have that much to share but to the contrary they have the most.
There is stark contrast between a person who would rather take things at face value versus the mentioned group which is always after tearing stuff up. Any ordinary conversation can take a number of tangents but isn’t that the meaning of conversation, exploration? If I expect an answer or one within a range, then we could phrase our talks in the form of multi choice questionnaires.
Carrying expectations to conversations is cruel. You are subjecting judgment upon a person who had no prior knowledge of the context running in your head. Whether someone is interesting or boring all exists in your head.
All conversations can be broken down to a few composites. The first would be the intention. It begins with pleasantries or an alert; anything to create attention and from a connection. The second will be the content. Now this is where it gets interesting.
Content cannot be taken at face value. Its basic intent is to display some sort of emotion or elicit some. The story, message or notification will have some emotion tied to it. I’m happy, sad, fascinated or what have you. It is mostly not about the content at hand but the emotion it aims to project. So a story about rockets might be about fascination while politics would most likely be something of a depressing nature.
Then within it lies the intent which might vary in nature. It might be of a commanding nature where all you will have to do follow instructions or seek clarification. Others might be of curiosity; where someone wants to create a conversation with the intent of entertaining through information. You could be welcome to ask, give opinions but all these will be based upon some sort of emotion.
We tend to store the most priced memories; good or bad, in the form of emotion. So conveying emotion shouldn’t be an emotional tragedy. Emotional people tend to have shallow tolerance to people mentioned at the beginning of this article. They don’t understand a world outside of what exist inside their heads.
To drop all emotion is to experience all emotion. People will share their deepest thoughts with you because it feels right doing so. Your emotion would only matter if the context required your input but the whole construct could collapse if the other has some expectation to an emotion. ‘I feel this thus you should feel this’.