Parallel vs. Emotionally Reciprocal Conversations

Post Reply New Topic

How many of you enjoy parallel conversations more than conversations where the other person is focused on you as opposed to non-personal facts?

By "parallel conversations", I mean the ones where one person states a fact and then another person states a related fact, so then the conversation continues in a chain of facts. Sometimes there may be questions, but they would be concrete, pertaining to the information being discussed as opposed to asking about people's feelings or providing sympathizing statements.

Example of a parallel conversation:
Person A: "I went to see the doctor today for a check-up and then I discovered that my B12 levels were too low."
Person B: "I have a friend whose B12 levels were very low and he had to go to the doctor every two weeks to get injections."
Person A: "Yeah, my doctor told me I may have to do that, too, if it gets lower."

Example of a person-focused conversation with sympathetic statements:
Person A: "I went to see the doctor today for a check-up and then I discovered that my B12 levels were too low."
Person B: "Oh, that's not good... Will you be able to do something about this?"
Person A: "Yes, I will need to take a B12 supplement."

I personally like parallel, concrete fact-only conversations. I tend to find questions about what I'm doing and how I'm feeling annoying in daily interactions, unless they are asked with some sort of a purpose, like when I go to see a therapist. Somehow, they feel intrusive and the emotions that people express along with these sympathetic statements are overwhelming. It's hard to carry those types of conversations for me, so they tend to hit a dead end quickly. I don't have PTSD or low self-esteem or anything, so I'm not sure why I'm this way exactly.

Anyone feel the same way?

I like reciprocal conversations better, personally.

If somebody is upset, there might be times when "parallel" conversations might do the trick. At other times, though, a person might want to feel like he/she is being "listened to."

I enjoy when there's a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B in there. I don't enjoy conversations that are purely factual, but I also don't like it when it's a constant back and forth of emotional affirmation.

I especially dislike it if my conversation partner is basically having one long monologue, stopped only if they want my confirmation on what they just said. Boring!

The last example by Cyclops is a very poor example of a "reciprocal" conversation.

Nor is it "parallel."

It's just an egomaniac's rant, with the other person as the puppet.

I definitely prefer the parallel conversations. Emotions can't adequately be expressed with words, so I don't usually see the point in people talking about how they feel except when it's in very crude terms, for example:

A: "Are you angry with me?"
B: "Yes."

or when they are talking about the concrete reasons for why they feel a certain way. Also, I consider emotions to be a private matter and typically don't feel the need to share them. For negative emotions, I would rather work on fixing whatever makes me feel bad. For positive emotions, well, I sort of used to try to share what was making me feel good (not the emotion itself), but I've learned that other people don't usually like the stuff I like, so I've mostly given up on that except to let out my excitement with some sort of physical affection if there is someone special nearby (which is never nowadays).

I feel the same way. I am actually really expressive but I like either expressing my emotions non-verbally or with words that make me feel a certain way but are not necessarily associated with emotions (e.g. saying a comforting word while expressing some emotions non-verbally). I also find it much easier to tune into others' emotions when they are expressed non-verbally only in an unambiguous, straightforward manner.

***

Also, I don't think people who monologue are necessarily egomaniacs, they might be SO much into their special interest that they don't want to or are unable to redirect the conversation onto the other person. However, they talk about it because getting to express their interest that way makes them happy.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except that it might be annoying to someone who doesn't share their interest or doesn't feel like going into so much depth on that interest.

I have a tendency to talk about facts in a conversation, though I also contribute what I think about certain topics. I also find talking about feelings intrusive, and I dislike being asked how I feel about something because I consider logical conclusions to be more important than feelings.

What is the worst, though, is someone suggesting I have a certain opinion on something just because it makes me feel a certain way.

Conversations that are an endless stream of questions directed at me are too hard -- there is too much pressure on me to come up with things to say, and the questions are usually too vague and confusing for me to even think of things to say; If I told someone I had a vitamin deficiency and they asked me "Will you be able to do something about this?" my mind would go blank because their words would translate into nothing (not a single word in that sentence is a concrete thing except "you") and, as a result, I would have a no idea what they were asking me about.

It's not so bad in reverse, but I don't ask people a lot of questions about themselves....I mostly just figure they will tell me whatever they want me to know.

Monologues can also happen because all words spoken have had to be carefully prepared and practiced beforehand because the speaker cannot think of words on demand, and/or because the speaker will forget all of their words (or sometimes even forget what they were trying to communicate altogether) if they are interrupted by the other person responding, commenting or asking a question (the words are, once assembled, a single thing that cannot be broken up and remembered, let alone used even if they could be remembered, as individual pieces with the other person's words in between said pieces).

It doesn't automatically mean the speaker doesn't want responses or questions or comments, it doesn't automatically mean the speaker doesn't want to hear what the other person has to say, nor does it automatically mean the speaker is unwilling to discuss or listen to other things that the other person wants to discuss or communicate. It could just mean the speaker has language and working memory problems (and maybe also problems knowing how and what and how much the other person needs to hear in order to understand something, and/or problems with summarizing), and would not be able to effectively verbally communicate about whatever-it-is at all except in a monologue format.

That's true. Not all monologuists are egomaniacs--perhaps a generalization on my part.

I also prefer parallel, concrete, fact-only conversations.
To me, facts are to be talked about, emotions are to be felt. End.
Discussing emotions and expressing sympathy can seem rather empty to me.
However, sometimes emotions and sympathy can be understood and implied, when discussing facts.

I believe I have a tendency to favor what you refer to as ?parallel? conversations (though it?s possible I misunderstand the distincition/definition).

I recently discussed my ?conversational style? with my therapist. During this discussion, I discovered that I am not really interested in most other people, as human beings. So, it seems that I tend to ?redirect? the conversation. To make it less personal. And towards something that I am more interested in.

I also prefer facts over personal sentiment, but I try to seem empathetic. I recognize that personal requires more emotional investment from others, so I try to be respectful of that. It's very uncomfortable though, and fraught with hidden landmines.

Yeah that too, it's a more in-depth explanation and I can relate to it. The reasons behind monologuing can get pretty complex... I don't think there's a reason for sharing if the person doesn't want to hear what the other person has to say. I've never met a person on the spectrum who didn't appear interested in at least some reciprocity in an interaction, even if it's just a parallel kind of reciprocating on behalf of the other person.

My exhausted-as-of-late mind is not being very coherent right now, sorry. I'm relieved to see, though, that the preference for parallel conversation is something that other people on the spectrum understand and share with me.

I should add that I generally lean toward the type of conversation that revolves around exchanging facts (or relating information, if you will), as opposed to the type of conversation that is centered around emotion/opinion.
Many people consider me to be a fairly 'logical', 'rational' conversation partner, and I've experienced that a lot of people find me limited in the scope of topics of conversation.
But when a person shares an interest with me, there's mutual enjoyment derived from the conversation. I recently had a very lengthy conversation while on a hiking trip with a lady I had not met prior, and it was very enjoyable for the both of us. It was mainly an exchanging of facts.

I can do the emotional reciprocation when I feel a lot of sympathy for the person I'm talking to; then it just goes automatically, and I insert the sympathetic questions/statement in the conversation without any problems or hesitation.

I tend towards the parallel conversations, but I have been working on sympathetic responses. It comes almost natural with some people though.

The OP is urgently trying to kick-off an "emotionally reciprocal" dialogue to get affirmation for her hatred of "emotional reciprocal" conversations!



This whole thread is a total contradiction of itself!