Talking Too Much

This is not a topic I voted for.  For one thing, it comes off as a vulgar and simplistic statement, and for another, everyone knows why it was proposed.  While the nature of the meeting allows everyone to speak her mind, it also has the weakness that some participants abuse the privilege.  Monologues tend to drag down the energy of the group and impede discussion, especially when they are essentially hot air empty of substance.  However, we must also remember the subjectivity of "too much".  All it means is an amount that one person is bothered by.  When a person we like talks for a long time, we find ways to enjoy what is said, either because we find it interesting or amusing, or because we care about how that person feels regarding her powers of communication.  On the other hand, a person we do not like much or at all does not have to talk for a long time at all to be considered to be talking too much.  Two words from somebody we despise are two words too many.  At the heart of it, the question is really about human interaction.  How can we moderate ourselves to avoid boring and frustrating others, and how can we tolerate others' lack of respect for our time?  How can we reach a point where, even if not everyone can be entertained, nobody is upset or angered by the flow of the conversation?  Unfortunately, there needs to be a minimum of respect for these questions to have any answer, and there are situations where that requirement is simply not met.  Resentment and mistrust have ways of making us behave in unfriendly ways, especially when mixed with entitlement and lack of self-awareness.  Sometimes the best option is to cut off all contact with a bad conversationalist.  It will be better for everyone's nerves in the end.  There is also a less subjective interpretation of the phrase, although still not entirely objective, which is its use to refer to giving away secrets.  There is still no total objectivity, however, because it remains for the listener to put two and two together from the information accidentally given.  Mostly, talking too much in this sense causes more suspicion than it gives away real secrets, but as in the previous interpretation, negative feelings are enough to warrant being upset about careless words.

The Source explained that he had been noticing too much talking in many places, not the least of which among campaigning politicians.  With the amount of talk and speech essential to the job, he felt they should be able to be more concise.  He also admitted the main problem of subjectivity, saying he himself was probably talking too much for some people.  He suggested we in our meetings have more feedback from the audience to get an idea of how our ideas are going over, which got some chuckles, but is really too complicated to implement in what is supposed to be a free-speaking group.  He tried to give more shape to the feeling of excess, saying taking too much time to speak is usually the fault of needing to organize one's thoughts.  If one is not prepared before beginning to speak, it is easy to waste time with unnecessary explanations or lose one's train of thought.  Again, he proposed feedback as a useful tool for organization of thoughts, or encouragement to do so.  It also encourages the audience to pay more attention to the speaker in any case, since they know they will be allowed to make their opinions known.  Giving feedback is evidence of interest, and the opportunity to do so can be a stimulus of interest as well.  He finished by emphasizing the limits on our time, both in the meeting specifically and in life, and asked for respect when taking such a precious resource.

A Returned Participant mused on the lack of substance in too much talk.  She also pointed to politicians as prime examples of this behavior, and also reminded us of another trick they use: commandeering terms and controlling the discussion.  In some ways this reflects our view of talking too much, in that there is little real information in what is being said, but it is also a way to shut opponents' mouths rather than allow one's own time to speak.  She identified talking as a basic need of humanity as a form of communication, but also said that there are many registers of speech, not all of which need much time to be used.  Our daily communication, just keeping in touch with those around us, tends to be simple and repetitive.  On the other hand, scientific language can use up a lot of oxygen or ink, but it is also more detailed and informative.  We need to have an interest in understanding the language being used for it to be useful to us, however.  The Participant insisted that most people do develop the ability to read an audience and at least know how well they are communicating, even if they do not find ways to salvage a failing speech.  We should be able to see the engagement of the audience when we are speaking well and usefully; if we do not see any engagement, we should reevaluate our speech tactics.

The Leader also explained the personal interpretation inherent in the expression - it is a negative impression of the person speaking, not just the amount of time spent listening.  Still, he noted one advantage of allowing people to speak as much as they want, especially in politics and business, this being our tendency to reveal information accidentally or speak too honestly about our opinions.  In part, we can blame the stress of having to communicate under the circumstances set by politics and business, but there is also a certain fear or discomfort when we are in silence.  We fill "uncomfortable silences" in conversations with empty chatter, just to fill the space in our ears left by empty air.  The Leader conceded that there may be situations in which a person seems to be talking to much, but is justified, perhaps by a mental problem that impedes social interaction.  Again, he stated the way we measure the excess is not in terms of time, but in terms of the effect the words have.  There are also cultural differences, of course, with different standards for use of speech and timing.

The Educator had also observed this terror before moments of silence and the compulsion people have to fill it.  We try to eliminate any gap in conversation, ignoring or not realizing that silence and listening are the keys to communication.  Besides words, we must be aware of body language, as it can communicate more efficiently and honestly that our verbal language.  Problems with excessive speech are problems of awareness and sensitivity.  Even when people reveal too much in their talk, in situations where it is desirable like gossip shows, we might feel uncomfortable receiving the information, rather than entertained.  We should put more value on our words, and ask ourselves if what we have to say really adds anything to existence.