Explain this interaction?

[Ban]

So I was with a colleague at work and there wasn't much to do we were talking for a while but I don't think the conversation was following the normal rules so I'm trying to figure out if I was doing something weird.

Basically she was talking at length telling me various stories and I was barely saying anything. When she would pause I would say something to sort of show I was listening and she would just carry on. We talked for a couple of hours over our shift and she must have been doing 95% of the talking. I didn't mind listening as it was that or sit about bored anyway but I really felt that I should have been contributing more.

I asked a few questions which she answered and just carried on. Some of them were questions where I would have thought she would have asked me back which didn't happen. (Plans for holidays in upcoming time off)

What I couldn't understand is what she thought she was getting back from me that made her willing to spend that much energy talking, I was listening but I don't think I was saying enough to fully get that across in between her pauses. I was worried that I was just making it awkward and she was talking just to fill the gap. I kept thinking maybe I should be looking away and going on my phone so she doesn't feel the need to talk. But I didn't want to look away while she was talking to me and just start ignoring her.

Could it have been that I wasn't letting it end so she just kept talking? Or is this extreme one way conversation a normal thing to happen if someone just feels like sharing stories?

 

[Suzette]

Some people just want to talk. The fact that you weren't arguing must have felt validating to her.

My sister inlaw is never quiet. I don't know how she sleeps, or eats or breathes because her mouth is always open and always talking. Non stop!

I do her a favor and try not to listen so that I don't hear all the rediculousness she spouts.

 

[Hypnalis]

If the talking was mainly about the person's life (relationships, activities), it might have been a "stream of consciousness" monolog which is an NT behavior, but not present in all NTs

If it was relatively factual (or pseudo-factual) it might have been a "chatty aspie".

There are other kinds of people who talk a lot, and don't really need a listener, but test for those first.

 

[LadyS]

Agree that some people just need someone to listen to them and don't always require much feedback. Sometimes a lending ear is all someone needs. Especially if they haven't had someone to talk to in a while. And like @Suzette said, some just like talking.

 

[Judge]

For some, this is a way for them to simply vent. That it's the sort of conversation not meant to interject with support or solutions. Something that at times is very difficult for me to navigate, where all I really can do is to briefly acknowledge what we said, without much any commentary at all.

I'm a habitual problem-solver. Always trying to fix things. But in such conversations, that serves only as an impediment to one's simple venting. Still hard to understand at times, but I'm getting there.

 

[Forest Cat]

Sounds like she wanted to talk and you were a good listener. I can`t imagine she talked for two hours because she thought she had to. She would have left if she didn`t want to talk with you I think.

 

[Suzette]

Sounds like she wanted to talk and you were a good listener. I can`t imagine she talked for two hours because she thought she had to. She would have left if she didn`t want to talk with you I think.

Let me introduce you to my sister inlaw

 

[Ban]

If the talking was mainly about the person's life (relationships, activities), it might have been a "stream of consciousness"

It was these kind of stories so hopefully thats all that was going on.

Sounds like she wanted to talk and you were a good listener. I can`t imagine she talked for two hours because she thought she had to. She would have left if she didn`t want to talk with you I think.

I really hope your right and I'm just overthinking it but she couldn't have really left as such, given the proximity of working we basically had to be around each other either way. I'm hoping like you and others have said she just liked talking.
I just can't help but feel that nobody else wouldn't find themselves in that situation. I'm not sure if they would have been more forward in saying more themselves or if they would have found a way to make silence less awkward or what but I feel like I have interactions all the time where I just look back and think that wasn't a normal thing to happen. I guess it can be explained how we got there if she just enjoys talking but I just feel like nobody else would have that kind of an interaction.

 

[Judge]

I guess it can be explained how we got there if she just enjoys talking but I just feel like nobody else would have that kind of an interaction.

They probably won't if they know from the outset that it isn't intended for the other person to get a word in.

I have a cousin who does this all the time on the phone.

 

[Ban]

They probably won't if they know from the outset that it isn't intended for the other person to get a word in.

I have a cousin who does this all the time on the phone.

I think your probably right, I never really know how to not engage with the person though. I think other people seem to just start and stop talking to each other seamlessly but for me its like when there talking I feel like I'm being really rude if I don't give all my attention and then it feels like a massive change when I suddenly stop and give them no attention. I can never make that transition.

 

[Judge]

I think other people seem to just start and stop talking to each other seamlessly but for me its like when there talking I feel like I'm being really rude if I don't give all my attention and then it feels like a massive change when I suddenly stop and give them no attention. I can never make that transition.

Neither can a few of us here.

I'm being facetious, of course. To me you're outlining one of the classic dynamics of communication that separates us neurologically from our counterparts who so easily navigate through such issues in comparison.

In real-time such conversations can be overwhelming because we're having to multitask. To not only understand and keep up with what is being said, but simultaneously we're struggling to understand their motive for saying whatever they are saying.

I know in my own case, real-time communication combined with multitasking usually results in "a recipe for disaster" whether the other person realizes it or not. I can multitask in all sorts of ways. As long as real-time communication to another person is not part of the process.

Her: "I'm so glad I got all that off my chest! So what's wrong?"
You: "Nothing. I'm just exhausted."
Her: "Huh?"
You: "Never mind."

 

[Hypnalis]

@Ban

The specific situation you described is something NT's have to learn to deal with too (it happens around mid-teens +/- a bit).

The basic polite formula is to interject (normally at a natural stopping point, but mid-sentence of necessary) and say you need to leave in <small number of time-units>
As with all such formulas, there are many different ways to frame it (10's, perhaps 100 +)

Your mindset here is that within the norms of politeness, there are limits to the rights other people have over your time. You have an unconditional right to "walk away" but a societal obligation to spend a little time (maybe 30 sec or a minute) to make the process smooth, hence the "white lie" implicit in the formula.

With people who are deliberately stealing your time (salesmen, chuggers, "missionaries", etc) you owe nothing. Personally I don't slow down if approached in the street, nor do I say a word to time thieves. I'm polite to chatterboxes though - even though they force their behavior on others (the listener has to shut the talker up), IMO it's easily forgiven.

BTW it's different with an aspie. It's easier for you to act to limit the time earlier (when you can feel the boredom starting), and be direct - they will (we will appreciate the clarity, and create a stopping point for you.

 

[Ban]

@Ban

The specific situation you described is something NT's have to learn to deal with too (it happens around mid-teens +/- a bit).

The basic polite formula is to interject (normally at a natural stopping point, but mid-sentence of necessary) and say you need to leave in <small number of time-units>
As with all such formulas, there are many different ways to frame it (10's, perhaps 100 +)

Your mindset here is that within the norms of politeness, there are limits to the rights other people have over your time. You have an unconditional right to "walk away" but a societal obligation to spend some a little time (maybe 30 sec or a minute) to make the process smooth, hence the "white lie" implicit in the formula.

With people who are deliberately stealing your time (salesmen, chuggers, "missionaries", etc) you owe nothing. Personally I don't slow down, nor do I say a word to time thieves. I'm polite to chatterboxes though - even though they're force their behavior on others (the listener has to shut the talker up), IMO it's easily forgiven.

BTW it's different with an aspie. It's easier to limit the time earlier (when you can feel the boredom starting), and be direct - they'll (we will appreciate the clarity, and create a stopping point for you.

Yeah thinking about it that is how my conversations end, I just didn't realise that was the rule. I never know how to leave a conversation so I usually just kind of hope that the other person will know when we've been talking for an appropriate amount of time and end it for us. Its funny that you described that formula because that is exactly how people end the conversation with me and I do seem to be able to pick up what there doing when I am on the other end of it.

 

[Owliet]

What I couldn't understand is what she thought she was getting back from me that made her willing to spend that much energy talking,

Sometimes people just need someone who will listen to them. I once was in a bank waiting for my sister to be seen and this lady started talking to me. She was very upset with her husband who’s son had gotten in trouble with the law and she didn’t want to bail him out again. It was extremely awkward at first but she needed someone to just listen to her vent and I happened to be someone who was there for that.

 

[Hypnalis]

Yeah thinking about it that is how my conversations end, I just didn't realise that was the rule. I never know how to leave a conversation so I usually just kind of hope that the other person will know when we've been talking for an appropriate amount of time and end it for us. Its funny that you described that formula because that is exactly how people end the conversation with me and I do seem to be able to pick up what there doing when I am on the other end of it.

I recognize this (and some of your other scenarios) from my younger self

My initial suggestion for you for unfocused conversations like this is to watch your own reactions to the situation. When you start feeling you'd like it to end, use a polite exit formula that you've already prepared, and leave within a few minutes. Or, if they are occupying your space, ask them to leave (there's a cascade of different formulas for the different cases - listen for others using them to collect some that are appropriate for your time/place/culture).

A way to look at your behavior (this might not communicate well - ignore if it seems weird): you've been putting yourself into a mild "brain-lock" because you wanted to exit, but didn't know how. The cause is the lack of a basic social technique; the undesired intermediate effect is the brain-lock; the problem is that you're trapped, uncomfortable, and wasting time. BTW a "brain-lock" is one way aspies react in this kind of situation. It can happen to NT's too, but much less often.

Apply a variation of the suggestion above that works for you, and the bad bits will go away.
It will take a while, but when this is no longer a problem, start thinking about the nature of the "brain-lock". If it happens in this case it will be happening in others. If you can "see" it, and it's an issue, you can address it.

BTW the underlying principle behind the "ending conversations formula(s)" is applicable in many other situations - even if you execute imperfectly once or twice at the beginning, this is well worth learning.

 

[Fino]

Here are some possibilities:
1. She's a talker, so she talked. Talk, talk, talk.
2. She was in a particular mood to talk.
3. She needed to vent.
4. She's autistic and whatever she was talking about was a special interest.
5. She was on drugs.

 

[Aspychata]

Maybe she thought of you as a person who might get her. Sometimes people truly have no one to talk to that won't judge them like relatives who can be extremely critical. So a neutral party who listens kind of validates our internal conversation and it's almost akin to going to confession minus the guilt/sin part of it.

Sometimes talking thru something removes the emotion and we sort of think thru it logically by discussing it with a neutral person, who we really aren't expecting much in feedback. Sometimes we can't believe or don't know how we should feel about an ongoing situation or we are in denial of something and discussing it forces our focus and stops the denial cycle.

 

[SusanLR]

Most of us have encountered this type of person.
A friend I stayed in contact with from my teens is this way. Non-stop talk.
We don't live close to each other now, but, she will call occasionally and I dred it.

There is no way to say anything in response.
It is all about her and her life and things she seems to think I know about and don't.
I could lay the phone down and go do something else for an hour and she'd never know it.
Just has a need to tell someone everything that is going on with her and what she is doing.
So boring. Thankfully she doesn't call that often.