I generally don’t mind this standard when I’m in “work mode,” but I’ve noticed a very undesirable side effect on the rest of my life: I’ve been slowly losing the ability to spend open-ended social time with people, without my brain trying to fit it in to some predetermined scheduling blocks. The end result is that I think I’m less open to the wonderful, serendipitous experiences and discoveries that one can make in the comfortable and unregulated presence of friends and loved ones.

I’ve written before about the cues we give and get for when a conversation is going to go deeper, and when it’s probably not.  To answer my own question about what kinds of states of being allows you to go deeper in conversation, I’ve been actively working on spending more open-ended time with people I care about and want to get to know better.  I have a few thoughts about how it’s going, and what approaches are working:

• Scheduling fewer things in a day:  Again, modern corporate scheduling culture encourages us to stack a bunch of appointments/meetings/tasks together one after the other, but that doesn’t work for “quality social time.”  By putting fewer scheduled items in an afternoon or evening, I can be much more comfortable letting one of them go on longer than I might have expected, seeing where the time takes us.  There’s a “risk” that if something ends early and you have free time, there will be a sense of missed opportunity, but since I’m trying to make up for missed opportunities in the other direction (spending nurturing time with good people), I don’t mind that so much.
• Clearing out mental clutter in advance: Even if I’ve kept my calendar open, if I go into a social setting with things weighing on my mind, items I know I’ll have to work on later, etc. it’s much harder to be truly present to those I’m with.  As much as possible, I’m trying to find the mental and emotional space to fully engage, whether it’s through actually getting those weighty tasks taken care of ahead of time, or just finding the discipline to put them away for a while.
• Paying attention to silence and pauses: Pauses and silence are often as important in a social setting as the words that are spoken.  They can mean so many different things: “there’s something on my mind and I could share it now if you want me to,” or “I’m content here,” or “I’m uncomfortable here,” or “Let’s talk about something else now,” or “I’m done with this conversation now, how about you?”  We’re so bad at listening and being in silence together in this culture, but I find it worth the significant effort to try to navigate those moments, and I’ve been getting better about letting them come and go without needing to fill the space with my voice.
• Paying attention to body language:  It’s amazing how easy it is to indicate “I’m probably done with you now” via body language.  A glance at the door or a clock, closing up a bag or a notebook, a yawn, shuffling keys or coins, even just changing seating position.  I know that I’ve trained myself to do these things well at the right times in my business meetings, so now I’m training myself not to do them subconsciously in social settings.  I try to sit calmly, arms and chest open, eyes and head engaged, trying to convey a sense that “I’m here with you for as long as we should be in this place together.“
• Not overdoing the open-ended-ness: I still believe in finding comfortable ending points to any given interaction, so it’s still important to be on the lookout for those, to achieve a kind of closure.  There are also people out there who might never notice that many, many hours of a conversation have passed without a break, trip to the bathroom, sleep, etc. and I have to be careful to avoid letting their own obliviousness (said lovingly!) take up more of my time than I want to give.

The result?

Sometimes I definitely find myself outside of my comfort zone – “gosh, I probably should have been done with this a while ago” or “hmm, I wonder if he/she is trying to go, maybe I should give them a way out!”

But for the most part, it’s meant that I’ve had much more rewarding interactions with those I spend time with, and I have found some depth that I probably would have preemptively participated in squashing otherwise.  I’ve also found myself noticing more the people who really have a hard time being in the moment themselves, sitting through pauses and silence, asking me questions and engaging me fully – these things are more apparent now that I’m not covering that up as much with my own mental preparations for the end of our time together.  It’s been very informative.

How do you work to make sure that you’re present to the people you spend time with?  What ways do you find to cultivate all that a given exchange might have to offer?

I put “deeper” in quotes because it’s one of those touchy-feely words that needs a little more definition to be useful here. When I think of a conversation reaching a new depth, I think of the people involved taking on topics that are significant or meaningful to them in ways that invites personal vulnerability or reflection, where you might have to take a stand, where the stakes are higher and there is something to gain or lose by going there. The topics that achieve this will of course vary widely by personality, community and culture.

So, what do those turning points look like? Here are a few I’ve noticed:

1. Those in conversation realize a new common ground. If you’re talking and you find out that the other person has had some experience, insight, or wisdom that connects with an experience, insight or bit of wisdom you’ve gained, it can open up a sense of possibility about where the conversation can go. “Wait, you’ve been through that too?” or “Wow, it sounds like we both think the same way about that complex issue!”
2. Those in conversation realize an unexpected conflict. If one person says something that runs up against what another thinks or feels, we have the choice to engage that – “Wow, I really disagree with what you just said!” – or to let it go, usually through silence, vagaries (“I see what you mean”), a change of the topic (“Well, I don’t know about that, but did you hear about…”), or even lying (“Yeah, totally!”). I’ve already written some too about how challenges in conversation can play out.
3. The depth of conversation implies or dictates the depth of the relationship. There are some kinds of sharing or engaging that we only do with people with whom we have certain kinds of relationships. If the conversation is headed in a direction that asks us to take on a new kind of relationship with the other person, we have a choice to make about whether that’s desirable. For some this is an easy choice, because they tend to be good at being in relationship with people “in the moment,” independent of any thoughts about future closeness, whether or not you’ll stay in touch, who else they might tell, etc. For others, reaching a new depth requires some sense of accountability and trust that’s built over time. So the choice about a conversation can be the choice about the future of the relationship with others participating.
4. A transitional moment in time arrives. Sometimes the choice about whether or not to go deeper is thrust upon us by some external happening. “Oh, well, now that we’re done with dinner, it’s a natural time to get up and leave…or we could stay and talk more.” Of course the choice here will usually be wrapped up in what kind of conversation is happening when the milestone is reached. For me, I have noticed that when I allow for the possibility that just because it’s a natural time to have closure on the conversation doesn’t mean we have to, I’ve ended up having some rich conversations in the “next phase” of the time together.

So, those are some of the critical moments I’ve noticed. I’m curious to know what others think about when and how those choices are made.

What kinds of environments or states of being or topics or relationships allow you to go deeper, and what kinds keep your conversation “at the surface”?

1. I’m now using Gravatars – “globally recognized avatars” – to display user-uploaded images next to the comments that people post. This creates a little bit better sense that you’re interacting with real humans, and even adds a dash of color. If you want to try it out, just visit gravatar.com to upload your avatar today.
2. You can now choose to be e-mailed about follow-up responses to a particular post that you comment on. While you can always subscribe to a post’s RSS feed to track comments, sometimes getting an e-mail is the easiest way to go – and don’t worry, you can just as easily unsubscribe too.
3. Some time ago, I added a post rating system to the blog, allowing you to indicate what you think on a scale of 1 to 5 stars (5 being the best, of course). Posts with high ratings get a little more attention elsewhere on the blog, and each star you add also help an angel get its wings. It’s a way to give feedback without typing out a comment – “thank you for helping us serve you better.”
4. Also added some time ago, but now more prominently featured, you can see posts that are related to a new blog entry, listed right below the entry itself. I tend to circle around some similar themes, and so this is at least a helpful way for me to see how things tie together; I hope it’s a useful way for you to explore my other writings too.

There ya go. Let me know how this stuff works for you; as always, this space is a work in progress.

As I thought about these observations (which I suppose are fairly obvious to those who hop between cultures), I realized that I’m definitely someone who prefers to be challenged, and who gets the most out of a conversation when I feel safe doing the challenging. But I know that in the course of seeking healthy dialog, especially dialog in the public sphere amongst relative strangers, it can still be quite a balancing act to engage in challenge with a positive outcome. And I worry that our fear of challenging or being challenged, or being out of practice with actually doing it, means that we end up missing out on great opportunities for conversation and building shared vision with those around us.

So I thought it worth writing down some of the ways that I find useful to challenge and be challenged, in hopes of eliciting comments and refinements from others who find themselves aware of their own tendencies and preferences in these areas.

First, I should be more clear about what I mean when I talk about challenging someone. If you’re already clearly engaged in a debate or dialog about an issue (such as you might be at a book club, or debate competition, or editorial board meeting), then you may be challenging each others` perspectives or opinions, but that’s not the kind of challenge I’m referring to. I’m talking about a setting like the scenario mentioned above, where there’s no default expectation that a statement or expressed view is in question, or that the listeners will react in any remotely opposing way to the speaker.

A dinner gathering where conversation is typically kept polite. A hallway conversation about the day’s news. A social exchange in a public place. These seem like settings where if someone says “Red really is the greatest color out there, and so…” and you happen to think that red is simply the worst color out there, you generally aren’t expected to interrupt them to say so, if you say anything at all. The challenge is a turning point where the chit-chat has ended, where the weather is no longer relevant, and the topic at hand is of importance to those conversing. And of course, I’m not talking about colors here….for me, red is politics, red is reproductive rights, red is money management, red is peak oil and climate change, red is how to raise kids properly, red is peace and justice issues, red is religion and spirituality.

What do I get out of being challenged? I’m asked to reconsider my views, to explore where they came from, to understand where I’m at with them now – that’s exciting! I learn how to communicate better, to make myself understood in ways that I don’t currently know – that’s great! I get to know viewpoints that are not my own, to really understand them, and perhaps even to adopt them – wonderful. When I think of times in my life when I’ve grown the most, felt the most alive, they are times when I’ve been challenged into new ways of looking at the world.

So, If someone wants to tell me that I’m wrong about red, to challenge me on my views, here are some ways that really work for me:

• Speaking plainly and boldly about how you feel. “Chris, I think you’re just wrong about that, and here’s why.” I respect it when feelings and views are not diluted out of concern for ego or politeness, though I certainly understand and frequently give in to that impulse.
• Maintaining the tone of the conversation even as its importance or intensity may escalate. I appreciate that some people express themselves best through raising their voice or gesturing wildly, but I generally don’t respond well to it. I think emphasis and importance can be shown in ways that don’t alienate someone (like me) who wants to hear and process the words as clearly as possible, without distraction. I fully realize that this is just something I can hope for, but not expect out of many people.
• Understanding my perspective fully. As I always strive to do for someone in a conversation, I can most engage another when I know that they are trying to see an issue from where I stand, and ask the questions necessary to get there. If it is always left to me to “make my position clear” and the other person isn’t invested in helping, then things quickly turn to debate and thoughts of victory for victory’s sake, instead of genuine mutual understanding.

Here are some things that really don’t work for me:

• Interrupting. If I’m interrupting someone, then we’re not having a conversation, we’re exchanging monologues, and we’re back to trying to win instead of trying to understand or agree. If someone is interrupting me, then I no longer have any sense of confidence in their ability to hear me out, and I just want the conversation to be over. I know that many, many interruption-laden conversations happen every day in families, businesses, and public spaces every day, and I know that it seems normal to some, but for me it’s a symptom of the declining quality of important dialog.
• Justifying a challenge based solely on vague personal declarations of understanding about how the world is. I’m fully in support of having conversation in this country that is LESS focused on the might and power of logic to the detriment of emotion and less cerebral forms of connection. But, if you’re going to tell me that I’m wrong about red, you can’t JUST tell me that it’s because you feel that way: “Chris, you’re wrong about red because everything I’ve ever experienced tells me so.” Whatever your reasoning, or emoting, or deep sense of right and wrong that guides you, you have to find a way to help me see it if we are to understand each other.

When I challenge someone, there are a number of things I take into consideration:

• Is this a situation where challenging this person can have a good and worthwhile outcome? Is it possible for us to have an exchange that is meaningful? If not, is the challenge about an issue that is important enough to go ahead anyway (i.e. standing up for something on principle more important than my relationship with the person I’m challenging)? Will the resulting conversation be impacted negatively by the setting? Would a written challenge be more effective?
• When I challenge someone’s views, can I do it in a way that authentically represents my own views or that respectively questions the reservations I have about their views, or is it just going to be a negation of something they’ve said that leaves no real path forward for them in the conversation? Am I challenging out of care, or out of the desire to be right?
• When does it end? If we challenge each other, and we don’t come to some point of understanding or clarity, how will we find closure? Does the other person want to resolve the challenge as much as I do (or more, or less)? What kinds of signs should I look for that they’re done? When and how will I express my need to end the conversation?

That’s what I have for now. What do you think? Do you like to challenge or be challenged in a conversation? If not, why not? If so, what methods or approach do and don’t work for you?

It’s important to me to distinguish this way of being from the classical definition of what it means to be an introvert, “a person who is more interested in his or her own self than in in other people.” I know plenty of people who fit this definition well – they become so occupied with their inner existence and interests that they forget (or never learn) how to respond well to external stimuli, how to be sensitive to the physical and verbal signals given off by those around them, how to communicate well with others. While I understand and respect the ways that someone could manifest that personality, and while I see that they can find other ways to be brilliant communicators or express themselves magnificently, it’s very important to me to be sensitive to and interested in the beings and happenings in the world around me, as much as I am in my own self.

So if I’m not a classic introvert, what am I? I think I’m just someone who prefers to be quiet in settings where quiet is not always the norm. I do this in part as a way of bearing witness to the many kinds of ways in which there is not enough quiet in our lives.

I’m sometimes a quiet owner and principal of a small business, when so many of my counterparts have personalities or roles that require them to be loud and dominating in business meetings because that is what we are taught about how to be a good leader.

I’m sometimes a quiet man because so many man are taught that they must be loud (and manly in their loudness) in all but the most extreme circumstances. I’m quiet because I do not want to be a man who uses loudness as a way to play my manly part.

I’m sometimes quiet in conversations before I respond to something someone else has said, because when we get into a mode of speaking in rapid response or speaking out of a need to fill the silence, we aren’t able (I believe) to fully speak from the heart. When I allow a pause of a few seconds or even longer, I speak more from my true self.

I’m sometimes quiet around women because they have often experienced or been taught the same things about Real Men: they’re loud and in charge and the conversation will follow their pace, tone, and volume. I’m quiet here because I want to be in conversations with women that are not dominated by my volume or my gender, and where they can be loud if they want to without having to compete against me.

I’m sometimes a quiet friend in a circle of friends, because so often friendships are defined and enacted by making sure we all have enough to say to each other, that there is sufficient gossip, personal updates, and random observations to fill the time. I’m quiet because sometimes I want to experience friendship and be a friend without using the stream of words on which we are used to depending.

Learning to find my not-so-quiet voice and my louder noises for the times when loudness and firm voices are appropriate is another kind of growth that I’m still working on. But I enjoy practicing and refining the art and invigorating discipline of quietness, even in a world that does not often cherish such things.

• Their online forums have been expanded and enlivened significantly beyond the original parenting scope. They seem well organized, appropriately well moderated, and a great place to discuss the particulars of a given article on a given day. I’m sure they’ve put some staff time and money into making this work, and it’s working.
• They’ve launched a significant offering of weblogs, including the flagship Editor’s Blog written by managing editor Rich Jackson. Jackson’s blog in particular is full of interesting insights into the newspaper biz at the local and national level, and presents some nice opportunities for discussion about how the news is covered.
• They’ve increased visibility of their open editorial board meetings. It’s something they’re clearly proud of, and they’ve gone out of their way to make sure the public can not only participate, but also has a chance to know in advance what they’ll be talking about. This is a significant and welcome departure from how many editorial boards tend to work; I only wish my schedule allowed me to attend more often.

Beyond those items, there are a few nice smaller things they’ve done recently that I appreciate as a technical person and consumer of online news:

• Adding RSS feeds to their site. If you don’t know what that means, or even if you do, you might enjoy my Summersault weblog posting about how content syndication can change your life. I think the P-I feeds are updated a bit later in the day than my own custom ones so I’ll stick with them for now, but it’s a great step.
• They’ve added a “P.I. in the A.M.” feature on their website, which displays the first sentence of the top stories from the forthcoming online edition. It’s a nice way to improve the timeliness of their site, without giving away the farm when it comes to their print edition income.

So, props to the Pal-Item. Newspapers are typically one-way pipes from the publishers to the readership, with a few exceptions. The P-I is trending toward a more bi-directional mode of covering and discussing the issues in our community, and this is a good thing (if a little scary for traditionalists).

I’m sure that all of this isn’t by accident – they’re smart folks and they know that there are relevance and revenue issues at stake here as the world of print journalism continues to be affected significantly by online publishing. But good for them for embracing it and trying some new things out – I think our community is better for it. And while I’ll continue to wish for a little more nuance in their editorial viewpoints and a little more profundity in their news reporting, at least I and all of their readers now have many more opportunities to do so publicly, openly and directly – as it should be.

Related, I think it’s important to note that NBC Nightly News has enabled comments on their weblog that chronicles the production of their nightly network newscast. I didn’t really consider it a blog until they did that, and even though the comments are moderated, they’ve really taken what I would consider to be an important (and somewhat risky) step in bringing the culture of blogging to mainstream media. Today’s series of posts on Brian Williams` travels with President Bush were particularly unique. Next in line: during commercials, instant messaging with the anchor about the segment that just aired? Hmmm.

• Those who do have a public voice tend to influence the process heavily
• When decisions are made that are contrary to our own wishes, we have a harder time accepting and adapting to those decisions if we weren’t involved in the process
• When we don’t know our neighbors and their desires, interests, and needs, we can’t serve each other as community members
• When we don’t talk to each other, other forces fill in the gaps, and they often don’t have the best for our community in mind
• Our private lives tend to be less fulfilling when we are isolated from those around us

I could go on – Parker J. Palmer explores these kinds of issues well in his book Company of Strangers: Christians & the Renewal of America’s Public Life. But it seems that no matter how you look at it, any hard choice to make or difficult situation to face – whether it about zoning or preservation or poverty or racism or cultural values or the future – is going to be a lot harder when people can’t exchange ideas about those choices and situations.

So, I’d like to review the venues for dialogue that I know of, and seek comment from anyone else out there who can add to or comment on this list.

• The Palladium-Item Op-Ed Page
  The local paper has a fairly active op-ed page, but it is by no means what I would call an engaging public forum. Because it is the only such page in town and is subject to the interests and idiosyncrasies of its limited readership (and the smaller number of whom bother to write in), the quality and quantity of relevant thoughts on a given subject are not very stable. The Pal-Item also has a limit of 300 words for a letter to the editor, which tends to restrict any serious commentary or in-depth exploration of an issue unless they invite you to be a guest columnist, which just adds to the already significant discretion they have in shaping the quality of the conversation. They also seem to have a severe problem with the same small group of readers writing in regularly (thus, I assume, their requirement that you wait 30 days between submissions), and responses and “threads” of discussion are cumbersome in general, which further limits the quality.
   
• Public Common Spaces
  Richmond has little in the way of traditional public spaces where people come together to engage in conversation with whomever else might be there to do so. The layout of our main street / uptown is perhaps most suited for this, with its wide sidewalks, public benches, and variety of attractions that could bring an equally diverse slice of the population together. Unfortunately, it’s largely quiet on evenings and weekends, and isn’t perceived by most as a place to come meet others for conversation. The parks are similarly well suited and wonderfully maintained common spaces, but rarely attract a critical mass for meaningful dialogue. Malls of all sorts tend not to encourage spontaneous conversation, though the Richmond Square Mall is certainly well-used as a gathering place for all ages and backgrounds. Some neighborhoods have active neighborhood associations and perhaps even street parties and the like, but they tend to be limited to very localized areas in their benefit. My sense is that the use of public common spaces for striking up conversations with “strangers” is a practice fading in most of America these days, so Richmond isn’t uniquely constrained in this way.
   
• Online Forums and Blogs
  I’m an advocate of using the technologies of the Internet to build community, and there are some good resources out there. The WayNet.org Talk of the Town forum isn’t very high-traffic but hosts conversations about everything from history to education to genealogy to restaurants. As the number of bloggers in the area increases, some interesting conversations are going on in the comments and cross-posts happening there – I think the G101.3 blog became the most popular one almost overnight (but maybe that’s the power of radio, eh). Some coffee bars and other hangout spots in town are creating online discussion areas to complement their physical spaces. And, hey parents, did you know that your teenager is posting his or her innermost thoughts on LiveJournal for their friends (and the rest of the world) to see? But of course there’s the constant problem of lack of regular access to the Internet for much of the county, and online discussion formats tend to be very limiting in their own right, removing a certain human element from exchanges. So these virtual discussions are certainly contributing to public dialogue, but for now remain a very small slice of it.
   
• Public Events
  Being a fairly small city with a full roster of clubs, organizations, and special events, there are certainly a number of times throughout the year when you can go to meet your fellow citizens. The county fair, music festivals, the Rooftop Rendezvous, Chamber of Commerce events, Young Adult Professionals, various cultural happenings at the local educational institutions, etc. Even events like a Civic Theatre production or a Symphony performance can be great opportunities for discussion. I guess the “down side” to these is again that because they aren’t really dedicated to raising the quality of public dialogue in the community, any progress made in that area through them tends to be accidental. They don’t serve as a vehicle for that discussion unless the people attending are very proactive about it.
   
• Religious Organizations
  Richmond certainly has an active community of churches, and I know that the various congregations have a lot of opportunities for dialogue between regular services, community service events, common meals, and similar gatherings. I might suggest that these gatherings are some of the most active venues for public dialogue, but while there are certainly some inter-denominational events too, I think it tends to be the case that discussions had within a given church community don’t often expand beyond their walls on a regular basis, and often don’t have the goal of engaging the community as a whole.
   
• Private Gathering Places
  The bars. More bars. Book stores. Coffee shops. Restaurants. All of these places are locations where people go to socialize, but most of the ones we have in Richmond are not laid out to be open public discussion spaces. The average restaurant experience is fairly isolating. The average bar sports loud music and other distractions. I do see people making spontaneous connections and striking up conversations at places like Charlie’s Coffee Bar & Gallery or Readmore Bookstore and Coffee Shop, but they are sadly under-used and under-appreciated as such.
   
• Intentional Public Discussions
  These are the events that are specifically organized to facilitate public discussion about a given topic or topics. Perhaps the most widely attended are City Council meetings (and related commission meetings), especially when a hot topic is on the agenda. Those particular meetings tend to be more about presenting viewpoints in front of the meeting body and public television cameras, instead of exchanging ideas freely with fellow citizens, so they are fairly restrictive. But other kinds include the Study Circles and Community Builders groups that have been organized around issues like racism and ethnic violence, community forums organized by places like the Townsend Center and Earlham College, and other one-off events put together by various civic and non-profit institutions.

This last category of venue is the one I would *love* to see more of: spaces created intentionally to bring people together to have respectful and in-depth conversation about the things that matter to us. It’s not that I think all social exchanges need to be so cerebral, but I think there are good middle grounds where people can have fun while also engaging each other authentically. Something like the Conversation Cafe Initiative provides a cookie-cutter format for such experiences, and is easy to do if you can just get the people there.

So – those are my note on where we do and don’t have quality public dialogue in Richmond today. What am I missing? How do you like to engage your fellow neighbors? What are the other opportunities out there?