I believe I’ve mentioned this before, but now I’ve formulated a rule about it.
I think that the trend for one person to talk at great length in conversations started—or at least increased exponentially—during the pandemic. I noticed then, and am still noticing, that there’s an increase in the amount of monologuing during conversations. (My theory for this, which is mine, is that people were isolated during the pandemic, and made up for it by talking a lot during social interaction.) That is, you can be having a a chat with someone, and during that time the person you’re talking to tends to dominate the discourse, going on and on for minutes at a time. Often this is accompanied by a lack of interest in the more laconic person, and if that happens to be me, I feel that the yakkers are interested only in themselves, not in the person they’re talking to. In other words, I see monloguing not only as a bit rude, but also self-centered. Since I don’t like to interrupt people (that’s a rule I had in my discussion seminars when I was teaching), I wind up feeling that I’ve been to a lecture, not a conversation.
I believe I’ve heard the rule below somewhere, but can’t remember where. But here’s the rule, which is now mine and here it is:
If you’re having a conversation with someone, you should utter only one to three sentences before you give the other person a chance to talk.
I hasten to add that I’m not indicting everyone here, just a few people. Nor should you assume that if you talk to me regularly, you’re one of the guilty parties!
Now clearly there are exceptions: people telling stories or jokes, or when the other person encourages a monologue. But otherwise, if you want to have a real conversation in which ideas are exchanged and personal bonds formed, I suggest adhering to the 1-3 sentence rule. I am trying to do this myself now.
***********
Here’s a cartoon taken from a very helpful article called “When you talk too much” on the site Etiquette for the Business of Life:
Yes, thank you, it is a life long problem for me in conversations as well as in mail, and I have not yet found my dealing with this problem to be satisfactory. As I am
starting talking groups with my students I am trying to use an hour clock so everyone gets the same time. We had an open exchange with the teachers from my university last week and although we didn‘t have someone giving us this rule, luckily we managed quite well.
From a monologist: thanks very much for very useful advise.
Reminds me of :
“You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say.”
-Treebeard, as written by J.R.R. Tolkien in
The Lord of the Rings : The Two Towers
“I talk to the trees, but they don’t listen to me.”
– From Tolkein’s little known book “A Hroom With A View”.
Also the first line of lyrics to “I Talk to the Trees” from Lerner and Lowe’s “Paint Your Wagon.”
Completely agree with the one-to-three sentence rule. I would also add, however, that speakers be allowed their three sentences before interruption. That would be a corollary.
(You’ll note that the above paragraph is three sentences.)
I’d like to see evidence that the lengths of monologues have increased since the pandemic. I haven’t noticed any change. The rule is still a good one even if monologue length has remained statistically constant.
Agreed! No interruption during the mandated speaking period!
I did talk to a psychologist (a therapist) and asked him if his patients tended to monologue more during and after the pandemic than before. He instantly agreed. But of course that’s anecdotal evidence.
How long is a sentence?!
& do you mean in person, or in the comments here?
This sentence would be seven words long if it were six words shorter.
🤪
Depends on the judge
Good point about the need to define the length of a sentence. Some monologuers I know can get around the three-sentence limit without even trying because, technically at least, their monologues consist of one almost endless sentence with the “judicious” use of the conjunction “and”.
Oh also – an epic monologue on monologues from Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (1987, bold added) :
“I mean, didn’t you notice on the plane when you started talking, eventually I started reading the vomit bag? Didn’t that give you some sort of clue, like, hey, maybe this guy’s not enjoying it? You know, everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You’re a miracle! Your stories have none of that. They’re not even amusing *accidentally*! […] And by the way, you know, when you’re telling these little stories? Here’s a good idea: have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!”
This is so true, though I didn’t notice it worsening with the pandemic; seems to me it’s always been so. At a poker table in casinos, there’s always one guy (and it’s almost always a man) who just says out loud every random thought that comes into his head. I’m always left wondering, “Does he REALLY think that he’s that much more interesting than everybody around him? That what he has to say is THAT much more important than what anybody else would say if he left room for them to talk?” Drives me crazy.
100% agreement. I will not name names.
I lead a group that meets 4-5 times each month, and I don’t notice either long monologues or increased frequent monologues. I’ve learned to watch out for first-timers. Sometimes, they attend a group event just for the opportunity to talk. It’s difficult to shut a person down, but some of the talkers are immune to hints and diversions. Then, the choice is to be very direct, and then ask a different person to voice their thoughts, or to let them hijack the event. Then, we usually don’t see them again, as they’re off to find a fresh audience. Obviously, option 2 is the easiest thing, but it’s not fair to the group. Oops, I’m over the word count limit!
Good rule but I would emphasize Jerry’s exceptions. One of my favourite friends is not exactly a monologuist but he’s a story teller. His stories are good, even the the ones I’ve heard before, and they always end with him laughing at his story. He has an excellent rolling jolly laugh. Because I know him well and care about his feelings I wouldn’t ever tell him his stories dominate the conversation and he should let others get a word in. Plus his wife already tells him this.
Having just binge-watched several series of Red Dwarf, someone is channelling The Cat. As if that were news round here.
The problem with this is that it assumes that people are planning what they’re going to say (or type), rather than “thinking out loud”. Which might be an aspiration for chez PCC(E), but for the wider universe is rather optimistic.
I don’t think it assumes this. I’ve had plenty of spontaneous conversations just by speaking what goes through my head at the moment.
Yes, but you’ve probably spent most of your life thinking things through into coherent memes (in the original Dawkins’ sense) and composing them into coherent sentences. Not everyone is like that.
As the psychobabblologists would put it, you’ve “internalised” that way of thinking. In the same way as the religious internalise that “if in doubt, god did it” way of thinking, and whatever way of thinking the artistic have have been internalised by them.
Please can Coyne’s Monologuing Rule be extended to include work meetings?
Not to mention School Governor meetings.
My least favorite form of people talking too much is when they actually ask you a question, but it’s just a segue for their next monologue. “Where is your son going to college? Because my daughter is thinking she blah blah blah…” Or “What do you think about the 2024 election? Because I feel like the problem is that blah blah blah…”
This is every interviewer I see on TV or a podcast. They blather on for 5 minutes and barely give the interviewee time to respond.
A self-absorbed acquaintance (now at a distance of several hundred miles) is loud and loquacious to the the point of logorrhea, rudely commandeering and dominating conversations. The odds are good that, when someone else in a group brings up a subject, he’ll quickly search his brain for a similar experience he’s had and will insist on interrupting to tell it before allowing the other speaker to finish. (Sometimes, apparently forgetting that the other speaker was speaking, after all, he’ll start in on a new subject, sometimes prompting others present to ask the first speaker if s/he wishes to finish.)
I once observed him listening to Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart (on his weekly PBS News appearance with David Brooks) and complaining that Capehart “talks too much.” It was all I could do to stifle a guffaw. Well, they do TALK on these programs. Talk about the cauldron opining about the kettle.
Slightly off topic but the Munk debate, between Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray on the one side and Malcom Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg on the other, was such a relief after watching presidential candidates scream at each other while running over time limits and ignoring moderators that I’ve taken a vow to turn off all obnoxious screamers in the future.
The worst is if the monologger says something you can’t hear and if you interrupt to say “wait sorry I didn’t hear that” the scream over you “Stop interrupting me!” and don’t even listen to what your question was. I had that happen at work once.
That is very strange behaviour! I think men talk to men in a different way to men talking to women. I bet you will have noticed that.
This was a woman talking to a group and me (woman).
I applaud this new Rool! Less verbosity! Seek always le bon mot!
I think some people thrive on inconsequential small talk, others find it very difficult. I think it is useful social glue, but can be tiring.
I had a Prof at UCL who I could never imagine talking to about anything outside his subject, but perhaps he was very different at home!
It would be an interesting discussion to have about conversation and other forms of communicating, the differences between speech and writing, between hearing and reading, between retaining in memory what one has heard once and must respond to on the spot versus having a chance to reread and take time to consider—between chit-chat, monograph, and conversational blogging, between speeches, interviews, and letters.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the typing
And the tongue
Falls the shadow
The tendency to harangue is really annoying and allows a type of “vomiting” on you rather than an attempt to truly consider your perspective. I was watching several videos on the Palestinian issue with Noam Chomsksy and he did the same thing. While he is without doubt an encyclopedic mind, and a fierce but also knowledgeable critic of both Israel and the United States, and I found myself more and more under the magical sway of his arguments, he also failed in his haranguing to properly hear the questioner, for example who asked him to comment on Pinker’s work that society is progressing, or Peterson’s perspective on the problem with political correctness. It seemed a dominating harangue can diminish the otherwise power of his position on the USA or Israel by refusing to take seriously that members of the left might have serious blinders on, intrinsic to membership even. Also, it seemed contradictory for an anarcho-syndicalist to fail to critique leftism when it can be just as statist as MAGA-ism or right-wing Israel. I wondered whether over- identification with your “side” turns you into a preacher?
One of my favorite quotes: No one ever learned anything by talking.
Good point. The cruel paradox for the lonely: they are shunned for their rambling, the social isolation leaves them longing for company even more than before. They make it worse by unloading on the next person who gives them an “in” to conversation.
The gift of gab! Good advice and I will remember it, especially when I’m on the phone.
Oh boy this is a pet peeve of mine..and I would agree, it seems to be on the increase. Although this style has been with us forever, I tend to think the scourge of the social media with its relentless focus on the ‘self’–everything seems to be some sort of performance, and about the most mundane things to boot. The vapid monologist seems to think they are handing down riveting insights. I labor under the burden by having to work with some of these people. They hand down their monologue thinking they did you a favor and leave you in the dust. I have to listen. Never a volley over the net. Unbearable
Story of my life. I have always found it very difficult to get a word in edgewise. I figure I must just be a very boring conversationalist.
You are probably a great conversationalist because you listen a lot.
My wife appreciates this observation Jerry. She is grateful. I am too. I’ll try to adhere to your suggestion. Thankyou. Brad
One to three sentences, eh? Hope I can hold that one in may mind and adhere to it or, at the very least, have the wit to catch my breath on occasion.