Small talk is commonly used as a tool to break the ice. It serves as a way to find the smallest common denominator with one’s counterpart. From there, one can gradually get to know the person.
In the pursuit of maximal approval, meteorological questions often get pulled out of a hat. Another common opener is asking about the journey—whether, for example, one found the route easily. One might then inquire about traffic delays encountered on the way.
The question is: Who is actually pretending for whom in that situation? It is of course easy to avoid friction by sticking to trivial topics and initiating a conversation that yields no surprises for the other person. The response then is less about exchanging information than conforming to the expected intent of the question.
A confusing answer would perhaps be: The weather doesn’t interest me, and any forecasts are moot given their unpredictability. The journey went smoothly via Google Maps—here is the link, if you like. Traffic was as expected.
So small talk is used to get conversations started—preformed questions and answers tossed back and forth like a ping-pong ball.
But I ask: Why is a meaningless conversation valued more highly than a moment of meaningful silence, which is often unfairly judged negatively? Even short pauses in conversation can make many people uncomfortable.
But what about our facial expressions and gestures? Communication theorist Paul Watzlawick once said: “You cannot not communicate.” What if refusing to allow silence undermines our nonverbal communication? Can we really create an honest foundation for conversation that way? It is clear that simply remaining silent allows only a limited kind of getting to know someone.
In the journal Psychological Science, researchers found that small talk has neither positive nor negative effects. One might as well acerbically claim it doesn’t matter—or is even superfluous. In contrast, deep conversations are proven to induce feelings of happiness.
So what if we reverse the approach? Start directly with a bold statement and dive into a substantial conversation? Some coaches argue that small talk is a tool for sharpening self‑confidence. But wouldn’t it take far more confidence to start a conversation with: “The AfD spreads right‑populist ideas and should be monitored by the constitution office”?
I’m sure such a statement incites conversation—and even offers a chance to truly get to know your counterpart. Depending on your social circles, you could of course adapt the topic accordingly. In a technical context, for example, you might start with: “GraphQL will replace REST.” The point is not to always aim for agreement or similarity.
Even a controversial discussion sparks a conversation and offers a wonderful opportunity to understand someone better.
And for all efficient networkers among us, there’s the undeniable advantage: you can quickly spot uninteresting conversational partners. What might take until the third drink using the classic meteorological opener can happen right away.
