We’re Losing 338 Words a Day
The following article comes from BBC Science Focus Magazine and is authored by Hatty Willmoth, trends editor at BBC Science Focus. Previously, she wrote for Newsweek, The Independent, and Live Science, among other publications, and has experience writing about health, nutrition, and food. Hatty is a member of the News Associates National College of Journalism (NCTJ) and holds a master’s degree in History from the University of Cambridge.
We’ve Been Talking Less Since 2005
Spoken language is in decline, according to new research from the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) and the University of Arizona.
Psychologists found that, since 2005, the average person has spoken less each year than the year before—approximately 338 fewer words per day.
This equates to an annual loss of around 120,000 words per person, representing thousands of lost human interactions.
“Small changes in daily behavior accumulate over time,” said Dr. Valeria Pfeifer, first author and assistant professor of linguistics and psychology at UMKC.
“A gradual decline in spoken conversation may not be obvious from day to day, but over the years, it could change the way people relate to one another.”
Overall, the scientists found a 28% decrease in the number of words spoken between 2005 and 2019.
“Talking less means spending less time connecting with others,” Pfeifer explained. “If people are having fewer conversations, they may be missing out on both the immediate emotional benefits of social interaction and the long-term benefits of maintaining strong relationships.”
Pfeifer and co-author Professor Matthias Mehl, a psychologist at the University of Arizona, reached these conclusions after analyzing data from 22 studies, collected over 14 years in the United States, Europe, and Australia.
As part of these studies, scientists recorded audio data from more than 2,000 people, aged 10 to 94, as they went about their daily activities.
Even small interactions can make a cumulative difference in the number of daily conversations, explained Pfeifer, such as chatting with baristas, shopkeepers, and other strangers.
Pfeifer stated that the study could not determine the reason for the decline in oral communication, but noted that the period analyzed (from 2005 to 2019) coincided with the rise of text messaging, email, and social media, so some of the lost conversations may now be taking place digitally.
“Whether written conversations offer the same social benefits as oral conversations is an open question that future research should address,” she concluded.
The study also revealed some variation by age. While all age groups were affected, participants aged 25 and younger showed a markedly more pronounced decline in speech, possibly related to their greater use of technology.
Scientists have yet to uncover all the implications of digital communication and our growing reliance on text and emojis instead of tone of voice, the rhythm of conversation, and emotional cues.
Pfeifer stated, “Humans have relied on spoken language for over 200,000 years, and we still don’t know if the shift to more digital communication comes at a social cost.
Our findings highlight the need to better understand how oral and written communication affect loneliness, health, and well-being.”
The Decline of Daily Dialogue
The following contribution comes from Psychology Today, which defines itself as follows: the world’s largest online portal for mental health and behavioral science. It is the original and largest publisher dedicated exclusively to human behavior. Our motto is “We’re here to help,” and the resources you access are the world’s leading source of specialized information on psychology and mental health.
PsychologyToday.com is the world’s largest psychotherapy portal, offering free access to hundreds of thousands of professionals. While Psychology Today has expanded its mission and reach across decades and continents, we continue to enjoy satisfying humanity’s innate curiosity about our favorite subject: ourselves.
The author is Laura Visu-Petra, PhD, coordinator of the Research Laboratory on Individual Differences and Legal Psychology (RIDDLE) and the Master’s Program in Legal Psychology at the Department of Psychology, Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania. Her initial studies focused on the typical and atypical development of cognitive control mechanisms throughout life, with the aim of developing training programs and improving academic performance. Later, she became interested in how social and emotional factors affect cognition, with particular attention to the development of deceptive behaviors related to problematic behaviors in children and the general population, as well as in populations facing adversity (e.g., prisoners, refugees). Her main interest lies in how individual differences in “positive” or “negative” personality traits foster prosocial or antisocial behaviors, based on authenticity or processes of self-deception.
What happens to the 338 words we “lose” each year?
A recent article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, with the unsettling title “Are We Slipping into Silence? We Speak 300 Fewer Words Each Year,” generated several alarming headlines by showing that daily conversations have experienced a steady decline from 2005 to 2018, decreasing by approximately 300 words per day each year, with an even steeper drop among those under 25. This conclusion was derived from the meticulous monitoring of audio data recorded from over 2,000 people, aged 10 to 94, as they went about their daily activities.
However, beyond a strictly quantitative approach, should we be concerned about the observed trend of an annual loss of spoken words? What are the consequences for human thought and interaction?
This concern is neither entirely new nor without dire consequences.
This was already foreshadowed in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, where, programmatically and intentionally, he played a fundamental role in the compilation of the Newspeak Dictionary, which would reform the language (and the thinking) of the inhabitants of Oceania:
We are destroying words: dozens, hundreds of them, every day. We are reducing language to its bare minimum… It is a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. […] Do you not see that the aim of Newspeak is to limit the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words to express it. Every concept that may be needed will be expressed by a single word, the meaning of which will be rigidly defined and whose secondary meanings will be blotted out and forgotten. Every year there will be fewer words and the scope of consciousness will be slightly reduced. The revolution will be complete when language is perfect.
The loss of nuance and complexity in language could stifle conflict and opposition by making critical thinking impossible.
However, it is highly unlikely that we are witnessing such a systematic effort. The decline in oral conversations appears to be a natural consequence (or a catalyst) of the changes in interpersonal communication that we have observed over several decades.
The most obvious explanation, mentioned by the authors, is that the communicative environment has simply shifted from face-to-face to online communication. We talk less, but we send more text messages. In a 2021 study, participants in a field experiment were asked to contact an old friend by phone or email. Other participants in the lab were invited to converse with a stranger via video, voice, or text.
The results indicated that interactions involving voice (phone, video call, and voice chat) created stronger social bonds and did not generate greater discomfort compared to interactions involving text (email, chat). However, a crucial finding was that misguided expectations about discomfort or connection led to what the authors termed “suboptimal preferences for text-based communication.” If we expect direct interactions to be uncomfortable—a term adopted by Gen Z and Millennials in response to embarrassment or social awkwardness—we can avoid anticipated social discomfort by preferring a more indirect environment.
Scene from Komi Can’t Communicate
This may explain the popularity of the manga Komi Can’t Communicate, which tells the story of a girl with a non-specific communication disorder who is encouraged by her classmate to make 100 friends and improve her communication skills. At first, they only manage to exchange messages by writing them on the whiteboard: a simpler and less stressful form of interaction than verbal communication. Many teenagers today claim to prefer text-based environments to face-to-face interactions.
However, texting may not engage us as much in the act of communicating as verbal interaction.
One study compared daughters who sent instant messages to their mothers after a stressful situation with those who called them. Surprisingly, in the case of the former, their salivary cortisol levels remained as high as those of the control subjects who did not interact with their parents. Furthermore, their hormonal responses (oxytocin release) only manifested in direct verbal conversations with their mothers, not during text messages. When analyzing the verbal content exchanged, the mothers in both groups showed the same support and expressiveness. The words weren’t lost or made more distant in written communication, but they had less of an (biological) impact compared to comforting words spoken aloud.
Finally, one hopeful explanation is that what is being reduced or eliminated in today’s impoverished communication is actually informal small talk, and that what remains is more authentic and deeper or more meaningful for those involved. The authors of the initial study allude to this possibility: “We have lost many small, incidental conversations: asking a cashier for help, asking a stranger for directions, chatting with a neighbor.” Are these lost, superficial interactions truly meaningful? Should we lament them?
A large-scale study published in Psychological Science showed that the happiest participants had twice as many genuine conversations
and a third less informal small talk than the least happy participants. This inspired behavioral scientists Kristen Berman and Dan Ariely to host a dinner party where small talk was literally banned and only meaningful conversations were allowed, although conversation topics and examples of dialogue were provided. Supposedly, this made people feel much happier and more engaged. Another explanation is that it might have relieved them of the burden of finding common ground and offered exotic and unusual topics (from suicide prevention to “the art of the dominatrix”) that bridged the conversations of a pre-selected group of people brought together by curiosity. But do we always need such fascinating topics to enjoy and benefit from conversations?
Once again, demonstrating an anticipation error, we might underestimate the power (and pleasure) of small talk.
In a recent series of nine experiments with 1,800 participants, researchers found that people consistently underestimated how interesting and enjoyable conversations about boring topics would be, from World War I to the stock market to vegan diets. Across the experiments, a clear pattern emerged: people expected the conversations to be quite dull, but then reported enjoying them far more than anticipated, even when both parties agreed the topic was indeed boring. Once we start communicating, the power of the interaction can outweigh the importance and relevance of the topic. We simply need to start talking, one way or another.
Are We Talking Less? Questions and Answers with Psychologist Matthias Mehl
The following contribution comes from the University of Arizona website and is authored by Niranjana Rajalakshmi, who handles university communications.
The study suggests that people lose 338 words a year, and this has been the case for at least a decade and a half. These 338 words don’t represent a long conversation we’ve stopped having, but rather are distributed in small moments throughout the day, explained Matthias Mehl.
In a society increasingly marked by self-checkouts, GPS navigation, and touchscreen ordering kiosks, new research shows that face-to-face conversation may be quietly disappearing. A new study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science suggests that people lose 338 words a year, and this has been the case for at least a decade and a half.
Matthias Mehl, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona, has dedicated his career to studying how people communicate in everyday life. When he set out to replicate his influential 2007 Science article on gender differences in talkativeness, the results pointed to something he hadn’t been looking for: a steady decline, over the years, in the number of words people speak daily.
For this study, Mehl collaborated with Valeria Pfeifer, an assistant professor of psychology and counseling at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the study’s first author. Mehl spoke with the University of Arizona newspaper about this serendipitous discovery, its implications for social connection, and why losing a few hundred words a day each year is more significant than it might seem.
Q: How did this finding come about? Was it something you had set out to study?
A: Not at all. We were replicating a previous article on gender differences in the number of words men and women speak daily. My colleague, Valeria Pfeifer, presented me with the word counts from the replication analyses, using the same methodology as our 2007 article, but with 2,200 new participants in 22 studies. Our estimate of the average daily words spoken was approximately 12,700. Our 2007 estimate had been 15,900. I told her there had to be a mistake. But she checked everything, and the figure held. Something had indeed changed.
Q: How did you confirm that this was a real trend?
A: We conducted 22 studies between 2005 and 2019 with approximately 2,200 participants in total. By plotting the daily word counts against the year each study was conducted, we found a consistent linear decline. Each year, the estimated number of words spoken daily decreased by 338. This is how it fell from approximately 16,000 in 2005 to about 12,700 in 2019. Speaking 338 fewer words each day equates to more than 120,000 fewer words per year.
Q: What kind of studies were these? Did they all measure the same thing?
A: No, and that’s important. These studies were conducted for entirely different purposes: coping with breast cancer, adjusting after a divorce, the social effects of meditation, relationship dynamics. None of them were designed to record the number of words people speak over time. Participants had no idea their word count would be analyzed in this way, which rules out any concerns that they might adjust their behavior to fit a hypothesis.
Q: What specifically is causing the decline in spoken words?
A: People immediately turn to social media and smartphones, and that certainly plays a role. When the sample was divided by age (under 25 versus over 25), young adults showed a steeper decline, about 452 words per year, compared to 314 for older adults. However, older adults are also experiencing a decline, which points to a broader phenomenon. We’ve lost many brief, informal conversations: asking a cashier for help, asking a stranger for directions, chatting with a neighbor.
Q: Could texting and social media be compensating for the loss of spoken words?
A: Possibly, in terms of raw output. The total word count across all channels may not have decreased, and may even have increased. But that’s a separate question from whether it allows us to remain socially whole. Spoken words convey something that written words often lack: presence, tone, the spontaneity of a real exchange. Whether people who text more but speak less are socially better off is something research has yet to resolve. I don’t think we can assume the two are interchangeable.
Q: Does this vary across cultures?
A: Our samples come from Western, individualistic societies, primarily the United States, with some from Europe. We didn’t have data from more collectivist cultures, so I wouldn’t extrapolate these findings globally. My impression, based on observation, is that the kind of casual, incidental interaction we seem to be losing still occurs more naturally in other parts of the world. But I can’t say that with data.
Q: Your data ends in 2019. What happened after that?
A: We don’t have data beyond 2019, so I can’t say for sure. But I would be surprised if the trend reversed. The pandemic accelerated many of the forces that were already driving social distancing. If we were averaging around 12,700 words a day at the beginning of 2019, I wouldn’t bet that things improved from then on.
Q: Should we be worried?
A: I think so. The U.S. Surgeon General has written about an epidemic of loneliness and a loss of social connection. What we might have here is a subtle, but objectively measurable, sign of that. These 338 words don’t represent a long conversation we’ve stopped having. They’re scattered throughout the day in small moments: the brief exchange at the supermarket checkout, the neighbor you used to run into, the stranger you once asked for directions. These moments accumulate, and so does their absence.
A UA study reveals that people are speaking 340 fewer words per day. This implies a loss of connection.
The following contribution comes from the website of KJZZ, an award-winning, listener-funded public radio station broadcasting to the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area. As an NPR member station in the region, KJZZ offers diverse programming that includes local, national, and international news, as well as content from the BBC, American Public Media, and PRX. The station also airs entertainment and talk shows to complement its daily news coverage.
The article is by Mark Brodie, co-host of The Show, KJZZ’s local news program. Since joining KJZZ in 2002, Brodie has been an anchor, reporter, and producer, including several years covering the Arizona Legislature from the Capitol. He was also the local host of Weekend Edition Saturday for over a decade.
We speak less now than we used to. This is the conclusion of a study conducted by Matthias Mehl, a social psychologist and professor at the University of Arizona. He and a colleague discovered that people are speaking about 340 fewer words per day, and that this trend has continued for more than a decade.
A 2007 study had revealed that people spoke, on average, almost 16,000 words a day. However, this new data shows that that number has dropped to less than 13,000 per day.
Mehl joined the program to discuss this topic further.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: Matthias, what was your reaction to seeing these results?
MATTHIAS MEHL: My reaction was one of surprise. This happened in a very particular context. We were trying to replicate a finding we had published years earlier, in 2007. In 2007, when analyzing gender differences, we discovered that men and women speak an average of 16,000 words per day. Last year, we had the opportunity to replicate this with a much larger and more diverse sample.
A postdoctoral researcher I was working with at the time, Valeria Pfeifer, who is now a professor, did the analysis and came to my office and said, “Yes, I have the analysis, I have the results, here they are.” And she shared figures with me that were around 13,000 words. I was very surprised and said, “That’s wrong. It can’t be.” And she double-checked it, and of course, they were right, and that’s how it all started. We were quite surprised to see that we had lost about 3,000 words in that span of about 14 years.
MARK BRODIE: Also, what does it mean that we speak so many fewer words?
MATTHIAS MEHL: If you think about it, or if you try to calculate how long it takes to say 300 words (there are calculators online), it comes out to about a minute and a half. So it’s not much, right? But it doesn’t work like that. Those 300 or 338 words are actually lost in a series of shorter interactions.
I think this matters quite a lot because every day we have fewer interactions, fewer spontaneous and brief conversations, fewer conversations with a neighbor, with the supermarket cashier, with a passerby, and I think it’s a real loss of social connection.
And if we do that over the years, let’s say 300 words a year, when you do the math, that’s 120,000 words a year. That’s the length of a novel, but spread across a large number of conversations.
MARK BRODIE: Ah. I realize that in what you just said, you didn’t mention technology, specifically devices, like mobile phones, tablets, etc. Do they also play a role?
MATTHIAS MEHL: I think so. And I think our society has changed; the infrastructure is such that it requires fewer conversations, but that’s partly due to electronic devices. So, when I need to know where to go, I consult Google Maps and I don’t talk to anyone anymore. In the same way, we don’t go to department stores anymore; we shop online. And I think that has a big influence. In addition, of course, there’s all the digital communication, like text messages and social media, which also plays a fundamental role.
MARK BRODIE: Well, that’s interesting. It’s not just that we’re glued to our phones sending messages or scrolling through social media, but that we can replace conversations with digital activities that, without the phone, would require talking to someone at the supermarket, in a coffee shop, in a department store, at the library, or wherever we happen to be.
MATTHIAS MEHL: Exactly. So we put this hypothesis to the test. We didn’t have detailed information about how frequently the participants used this type of digital communication, so we had to resort to a proxy, and that proxy was age. We started from the premise that young people use digital communication more than older people.
We divided our sample into 25-year age groups and analyzed how we could estimate word loss for both young and older adults. And, consistent with the idea that digital communication has an impact, young adults lost 451 words, a greater loss, which makes sense.
But older adults, or those over 25, also lost 314 words. So there’s something that really affects all these age groups, and we believe that digital communication, the digitization of our society, and the way we meet our needs play a key role, but it’s not just about posting on social media.
MARK BRODIE: What do you think we lose when we stop communicating verbally to a certain extent?
MATTHIAS MEHL: I think what we lose are those moments of micro-connection. When we text, we limit ourselves to the written word, the typed word. And the typed word is fine. But it always carries a certain degree of uncertainty.
We see it when we receive a text message and wonder, “Was this person serious? Did they get offended? Did I miss something?” And then we try to use emojis. There’s always a certain degree of uncertainty.
In face-to-face conversations, we have facial expressions, prosodic information through voice, gestures, and words. Humans have evolved to be very good at interpreting: “Is this conversation going well? Am I okay?” And I think that facilitates those moments of connection with the other person, those micro-connections. And I think this is reflected in a brief conversation with a barista, where you feel understood. You feel seen by the other person, you feel noticed, and I think that’s the connection we’re losing.
MARK BRODIE: I want to point out that your data doesn’t go back further than 2019, which means that, of course, it doesn’t include the pandemic, a period in which, at least anecdotally, many people believe we stopped talking to each other—at least many of us—and forgot how to interact.
I wonder if, if you repeated this study, the data would still show that we talk less. What do you think it would look like if you tried to replicate it?
MATTHIAS MEHL: Yes, that’s why I think it surprised us so much, because if we had lost 3,000 words after the pandemic, probably no one would be surprised. But there’s very little reason to believe we’ve resumed an upward trend. As you suggest, people used to report that, after the pandemic, they felt socially apathetic and found it difficult to find the energy to communicate with others.
Así que creo que la tendencia
So I think the trend probably continued, so I don’t know if we’re now approaching 11,000 or 10,000 words, or something like that.
MARK BRODIE: Well, what do you think it would take to reverse that trend? What would it take for us to talk to each other more?
MATTHIAS MEHL: The answer lies in understanding that 300 words isn’t that many. It’s not much when you compare it to physical activity. To counteract our sedentary lifestyle, we don’t need to run a marathon. It’s about incorporating a little more physical activity into our daily lives. For example, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, getting up after sitting for an hour and walking around a bit. And I think that’s a good parallel we can draw with social activity. I think exchanging a few words with people now and then can have a big impact.
MARK BRODIE: So, maybe something like, if you’re at the supermarket, using the checkout instead of the self-checkout, or looking up from your phone when you order your coffee and saying hello to the barista serving you. Small things like that.
MATTHIAS MEHL: Exactly. That’s directly equivalent to not using the elevator and taking the stairs, or not using the self-checkout. Yes, I agree.
MARK BRODIE: Very good, that was social psychologist Matthias Mehl from the University of Arizona. Matthias, thank you very much.
MATTHIAS MEHL: Thank you, Mark. I appreciate it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story and headline have been modified to reflect everyday word count.
Conversations are essential to our well-being. Psychologists are exploring the science behind their immense power
The following contribution comes from the American Psychological Association (APA) website, which defines itself as follows: The APA is the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 190,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students among its members.
Our Work
Our mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge for the benefit of society and the improvement of quality of life.
Research suggests that asking questions that demonstrate we are listening can be one of the best ways to start a conversation.
This article is by Zara Abrams, a member of the team.
Conversations have immense power. They help us create new connections and deepen existing ones.
But conversations don’t always go well. Some generate conflict, hurt, or resentment; others don’t even begin for fear of discomfort or rejection. And because of their inherent complexity, conversations have long been a mystery to psychologists.
“Conversation is an ancient technology that allows us to align our brains so we can understand each other,” said Thalia Wheatley, PhD, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Dartmouth College, who studies the neural, biological, and other markers that indicate connection during conversations. “It’s the most common social behavior we engage in, and yet we still don’t fully understand it.”
In recent years, new theories and tools have begun to reveal valuable insights into these crucial social interactions, from casual chats to political disagreements and negotiations between neighbors, businesses, and nations. Psychologists use sophisticated approaches, such as natural language processing algorithms and a neuroimaging technique known as hyperscanning—which involves simultaneously scanning two or more brains as they interact—to gain new perspectives. They then share these findings to enrich everyday interactions between strangers, make disagreements more productive, and improve outcomes for mediators, suicide crisis negotiators, and other professionals.
“People’s well-being is largely determined by the quality of their social relationships, which depend heavily on the conversations they have with one another,” said Michael Kardas, PhD, an adjunct professor of management at Oklahoma State University’s Spears School of Business, who has studied why people avoid deep conversations. “Going a little deeper in conversations, as well as learning how to handle disagreements, can create the kinds of connections that make people feel happier.”
Why do we avoid conversations?
As a primary means of social interaction, conversations are essential to our well-being. However, we tend to avoid some of the most rewarding ones: deep conversations and opportunities to build new relationships with strangers.
One reason is that people mistakenly predict that conversations will become less enjoyable over time, explained psychologist Juliana Schroeder, PhD, an associate professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. She, Kardas, and their colleagues have shown that people perceive conversations like other hedonic activities: Just as the fifth chocolate bar isn’t as pleasurable as the first, they assume that the quality of the conversation will decline over time. Even after a good conversation, study participants preferred to remain silent for part of a 30-minute session rather than continue talking to a stranger the entire time, when given the choice. However, those randomly assigned to talk for 30 minutes had a better overall experience than those who chose to end their conversations early (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 123, No. 4, 2022; Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2022).
“People end conversations sooner than they normally would because they anticipate that the enjoyment will diminish and that they will run out of things to talk about,” Schroeder said.
People also predict that deep conversations, especially with strangers, will be more awkward than they actually are.
Kardas and colleagues paired participants with strangers to talk about either superficial topics (e.g., How often do you come here?) or deep topics (e.g., Can you describe the last time you cried in front of someone?). Pre- and post-surveys indicated that deep conversations were less awkward and led to greater connection and happiness than participants expected (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 122, No. 3, 2022).
Knowing that deep conversations carry less risk than people imagine could lower the barriers to initiating them.
“Keep a deep question in mind or build on something that has been shared during the conversation to ask the other person something more personal,” said Kardas. “You don’t need to increase the depth of the conversation as gradually as you might think.”
Conflicting goals are another reason why people may avoid conversations or have difficulty maintaining effective ones. People use conversations for a variety of reasons: for example, to impress, flatter, help, hurt, persuade, understand, or deceive. Michael Yeomans, PhD, assistant professor of strategy and organizational behavior at Imperial College London, Alison Wood Brooks, PhD, and colleagues developed the “conversational circumflex” as a way to conceptualize the various, often conflicting, goals that can motivate and shape conversations (Current Opinion in Psychology, vol. 44, 2022). It can help researchers understand how goals operate in conversations and find ways to make interactions more effective.
[Related: Conversations are powerful. Here are some ways to deal with discomfort and strengthen relationships]
Sometimes, goals conflict within the same person: for example, I might want to ask for advice, but avoid doing so for fear of appearing incompetent. Brooks’ research has shown that, on the contrary, asking for advice actually increases perceived competence (Management Science, Vol. 61, No. 6, 2015). Goals can also conflict interpersonally: I want to offer an honest opinion during a company meeting, but my bosses don’t want their ideas criticized in public.
“Many of our conversations revolve around coordinating joint actions, which are negotiations of one kind or another,” Yeomans said.
How to Achieve Fluid Conversations
As psychologists delve deeper into the nuances of what makes social interaction satisfying and effective, it becomes clear that some conventional ideas—like asking questions—may be too vague and even diminish the quality of the conversation.
In the case of the “ask first” technique, where a speaker poses a question and then answers it, Yeomans and colleagues have shown that listeners perceive the question as insincere (article under review). The speaker believes that asking first makes their interlocutor feel included, but these good intentions are executed in a way that actually pushes them away.
On the other hand, asking follow-up questions does improve the quality of the conversation. According to research by Yeomans, Brooks, social psychologist Julia Minson, PhD, associate professor of public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School, and colleagues (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 113, No. 3, 2017).
“Asking questions makes you more likeable, but the key is showing that you’re listening,” Minson said. “Asking questions is less effective if they have nothing to do with what the other person just said.”
Active Listening and Short Pauses
According to research by Wheatley, her postdoctoral fellow Emma Templeton, PhD, and colleagues, active listening tends to generate short pauses during conversations, which are linked to greater satisfaction among participants. They found that, both among friends and strangers, short pauses between speakers are associated with a greater sense of connection (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119, no. 4, 2022). Long pauses between strangers are awkward, but between friends they can indicate connection; For example, if one friend shares something personal and the other takes a moment to reflect before responding (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 378, no. 1875, 2023).
“When someone responds too quickly to something very personal, or not quickly enough when a brisk exchange was expected, they weren’t interacting with you in the right way,” Wheatley said.
Wheatley and other researchers are exploring a new frontier in understanding how we converse. Using hyperscanning, researchers can scan two brains simultaneously as participants interact. At Princeton University, Diana Tamir, PhD, a professor of psychology, and her colleagues created a decoding model using years of neuroimaging data that links brain activity to various mental states that occur during conversations. They then collected functional neuroimaging data from participants during informal conversations, mapping conversation patterns between strangers as well as patterns between friends.
Neural Patterns
Together with his postdoctoral researcher Sebastian Speer, PhD, and their colleagues, Tamir discovered that the neural patterns of strangers become more similar throughout a conversation: they spend their time finding common ground, he explained. But friends do something entirely different. They start with more similar mental states, then, as the conversation progresses, they diverge, spending more and more time exploring new and different states. This pattern leads to better conversations, even when strangers converse and their neural patterns diverge, becoming more like those of their friends (PsyArXiv Preprints, 2023).
“Our main takeaway is that, during a conversation, it’s important to know where the other person is at, but it’s also important to steer them in a new direction, to say something that surprises and interests them,” Tamir stated.
Managing Conflict
Effective conversations not only generate a sense of connection and satisfaction. Sometimes conflicts arise, but if managed properly, disagreements can also be productive.
“Disagreement is inevitable, and our success or failure in relationships often depends on whether we can handle it successfully and build trust despite it,” Yeomans said.
Conflict is difficult to resolve if we use the same linguistic tools that work well for simple, objective corrections (“Taxes are due April 15”) to talk about values and opinions (“We should raise taxes”), Yeomans explained. For that reason, he, Minson, and their colleagues are studying what they call conversational receptiveness: the ways we can show our willingness to engage with opposing viewpoints during a conversation. The researchers used a natural language processing algorithm to analyze the words and phrases that predict receptiveness in a listener and summarized their findings with the acronym HEAR: attenuation, emphasis on agreement, acknowledgment, and reframing (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 160, 2020).
According to Minson, nuanced statements involve creating enough uncertainty to prevent the other person from reacting automatically. For example, instead of saying “everyone needs to get a COVID vaccine,” you could say “most people probably should get a COVID vaccine.” Emphasizing agreement involves finding even a small point of common ground; for example, “We both want a fair world.”
“In any conversation, however much we disagree, we always agree on something,” Minson stated.
Acknowledgment, which aligns with common family therapy advice, involves reframing the other person’s position to show that you have heard and understood (“You just said…” or “I understand that…”). Finally, reframing statements using words that express positive emotions and avoiding negative ones (such as “no,” “no,” and “I won’t”) can be helpful; instead of saying “I hate being interrupted,” you could say “I really appreciate being allowed to finish my sentences.”
Small changes in how we express ourselves can make a big difference, even in the most delicate situations. After analyzing 31 hours of crisis negotiation conversations in suicide situations, researchers found that certain words and phrases seemed more likely than others to keep the person at risk of suicide engaged in the conversation. Saying “I’m just here to talk” had a greater impact than “I’m just here to chat,” while the word “command” was more effective than “help” in statements like “Let’s work this out together.” (Journal of Language and Social Psychology, first published online, 2023).
“This was fantastic because we were able to incorporate these findings directly into training programs,” said Elizabeth Stokoe, PhD, a professor at the London School of Economics who studies conversations in various contexts and co-authored the study on terminology used. “Police subsequently reported that they did indeed achieve better results more quickly if they used ‘classify’ and ‘talk’ instead of ‘help’ and ‘converse.’”
Focusing on conversations can also be useful for increasing the effectiveness of public health campaigns. Christin Scholz, PhD, an assistant professor of persuasive communication at the University of Amsterdam, studies how young adults experience and share anti-alcohol messages, including during conversations with their peers, and how this can influence their behavior. She calls this the “social life” of a public health message.
“Conversations have great power to influence health-related behaviors, but they can also backfire,” Scholz said.
For example, young adults tend to have positive conversations about alcohol, a behavior linked to higher consumption (Health Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 7, 2019). However, some initial experiments suggest that these conversations are subject to external influences.
In a study currently under review, Scholz sent teenagers anti-alcohol messages (such as an image of a car crash along with a warning about drunk driving) and then asked them to plan a conversation about what they had seen. He found that the conversations they subsequently had with their peers about alcohol were more negative. This result is encouraging, he said, but the intervention did not have a direct effect on alcohol consumption, indicating that more research is needed.
“So far, conversations are not really being used to optimize the design of these campaigns, but social interaction is clearly an important factor in making these messages effective,” he concluded.
New Horizons for the Science of Conversation
Even when researchers use traditional methods, such as audio or video recordings of participants in the lab, studying conversations presents logistical challenges that many other experiments don’t. For Minson, convincing two people to show up at the same time and discuss a topic they disagree on is the first hurdle. And once a conversation begins, it’s impossible to predict how it will unfold.
“Conversation is essentially an infinitely complex space. No two conversations are alike,” Yeomans said. “There is an infinite number of words that can be used, but also the order, rhythm, structure, and nonverbal communication can vary infinitely.”
For that reason, natural language processing is a huge advantage for conversation scientists, as it can analyze lengthy transcripts to find patterns and associations. But guidelines on using natural language processing in the social sciences focus almost exclusively on single-author documents, such as news articles or product reviews, Yeomans said. He, Brooks, and their colleagues are creating a guide that shows why dialogue is qualitatively different: because aspects such as word order, turn-taking, and pacing become important. They also offer advice on how to record, transcribe, and analyze data, as well as how to share it without violating people’s privacy.
Hyperscanning also promises to reveal new insights into how we communicate. Wheatley is collecting data on how brains align during an improvised storytelling task, while Tamir plans to begin exploring the neuroscience behind persuasion. For example: Does a skilled persuader manage to get another person’s neural activity to closely resemble their own? Do they find the perfect balance in brain alignment? Or something else?
“With behavioral methods, you can observe people before and after they speak, but now we can get a continuous measurement of their state throughout an entire conversation,” Tamir said. “This greatly expands our ability to analyze the dynamics of aspects such as conversation, persuasion, and engagement.”
The Neuroscience Behind Our Words
The following contribution comes from the BRM Business Relationship Management Institute website, which defines it as follows: Business Relationship Management (BRM) is a proven capability, discipline, and function that enables organizations to achieve meaningful results. As the link between strategy and execution, BRM empowers organizations to achieve their objectives, turn vision into reality, and drive the results that truly matter.
The author is Lindsey Horton, a team member.
Category: Business Relationship Management Capability, Business Relationship Management Research, Professional Development | Contributed by
Sticks and Stones
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
This phrase reminds us of childhood recess, when we didn’t want others to know how hurtful their words were. However, the belief that physical harm is more painful than psychological or emotional harm is not necessarily true.
Scientific studies demonstrate that words, both positive and negative, not only affect us at a deep psychological level but also have a significant impact on the course of our lives.
Words Can Hurt
In their neuroscience experiment, “Do Words Hurt?”, Maria Richter and her colleagues monitored participants’ brain responses to negative words, both spoken and imagined. During this process, they discovered that painful or negative words increase implicit processing (PPI) in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (SAC).
Frankly, their study demonstrated that negative words release hormones that induce stress and anxiety in the subjects.
Furthermore, a study found higher levels of anxiety in children associated with a greater frequency of negative self-criticism. According to the study abstract,
“These results suggest that negative self-criticism influences the generation or maintenance of anxiety in healthy children.”
In short, negative words—whether spoken, heard, or thought—not only cause situational stress but also contribute to long-term anxiety.
Think Positively
Naturally, the fact that harboring negative thoughts is enough to induce stress and anxiety hormones raises the question: “What effect do positive thoughts have?”
In their joint book, Words Can Change Your Brain, Dr. Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist at Thomas Jefferson University, and Mark Robert Waldman, a communication expert, state that “a single word has the power to influence the expression of genes that regulate physical and emotional stress.”
Furthermore, according to these two experts in their field, practicing positive thinking can literally change a person’s reality. By holding a positive and optimistic word in mind, activity in the frontal lobe is stimulated. This area includes specific language centers that connect directly to the motor cortex, which is responsible for driving us to action. And as our research has shown, the more time we spend focusing on positive words, the more we begin to influence other areas of the brain.
~Newburg, Waldman
Over time, by maintaining positive thoughts, the functions of the parietal lobe begin to change. Consequently, this modifies our perception of ourselves and those around us. Essentially, having a positive view of ourselves helps train our brain to see the good in others.
Thus, by consistently practicing positive thoughts and words, we not only change our self-perception but also how we perceive the world around us. Ultimately, this gives us the ability to shape our reality and change the world for the better.
BRMs: Using Positive Language to Generate Value
Clearly, as human beings, our thought patterns directly shape our perception of the world and those around us. Our thoughts become our words and, therefore, our language.
This applies at both the individual and organizational levels. A strong corporate culture is based on a shared positive language, grounded in the organization’s core values.
As business relationship managers (BRMs), we know that relationships are essential to our role and that language shapes our human interactions. So, how can we modify the language we use in our daily work to reduce the negative connotations associated with traditional corporate language?
The Importance of Positive Language
In his article “Language Matters,” Aaron Barnes, CEO of the BRM Institute, delves into the importance of positive language for enhancing business communication and generating value.
Below are some examples of how you can adopt positive language. As you do so, reflect on how each of these words or phrases makes you feel, remember, or associate with you.
Positive Changes in BRM Language
Capability instead of process
Convergence instead of alignment
Shared responsibility instead of accountability
Demand management instead of demand management
Business capabilities instead of services
Making these small changes to the words we use to express ideas creates a culture that doesn’t point fingers or blame any department or individual within the organization. Instead, it seeks to promote transparency, improve communication, and value individual work.
Ultimately, a shared, positive language will foster effective communication and
collaboration, driving innovation, success, and organizational value.
“Language Matters” contains a comprehensive list of all the positive language changes you can implement to boost effective communication across your entire company.
To access the full article and exclusive BRM-related knowledge and resources, join the BRM Community today!
The Art of Silence: How Speaking Less Can Make You More Powerful, Successful, and Charismatic
The following contribution comes from the Medium portal, which defines itself as follows: Medium is a space for human stories and ideas. Here, anyone can share knowledge and wisdom with the world, without needing to build a mailing list or a following. The internet is noisy and chaotic; Medium is quiet but full of valuable ideas. It’s simple, engaging, collaborative, and helps you find the right readers for what you have to say.
The author is Elias Hasan, a team member.
“Wise people speak when they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something.” — Plato
Today we live in a world where anyone can express their opinion on practically anything. I saw comments on a video of someone peeling an orange incorrectly. Although it was amusing to see people getting angry about the strangest things, I wondered: what did they gain from it? It reminded me a lot of the quote above.
The human tongue is a powerful weapon, like the mind; only a few can master it. The art of silence is the ability to control what you say and how much you say. We often speak without thinking, and as a result, we get ourselves into countless unnecessary trouble. We let slip things we later regret.
Many people believe that when someone talks more than their conversation partner, they are more intelligent, as if they were offering philosophical advice. In reality, if they are trying to impress you with their words, the more they talk, the more ordinary they seem, and you’ll realize they lack self-control.
The next time you have the opportunity to observe an influential person—whether in a movie, a meeting with the CEO, a networking event, anywhere—observe them. Notice how much they talk and how they respond. Of course, it depends on the context, but when they speak unnecessarily, as if to show off or to keep the room quiet, notice how their power diminishes with every word.
“The more a man knows, the less he speaks.” — Voltaire
1) It makes you seem more self-assured.
Often, the more a person talks, the less self-assured they are. We rarely perceive this consciously, but our subconscious picks up on it immediately and subtly hints at it until we become aware of it.
Who are the people who don’t mind being alone indefinitely? They are the ones who radiate self-confidence, self-love, and high self-esteem.
Why?
Because you don’t care what others think of you; you have nothing to prove. So you don’t speak unless it’s necessary. It’s curious, because when you’re not trying to impress anyone, that’s when you impress them the most.
Why is it important to subtly show the world that you are confident?
No one will have the confidence to entrust you with the keys to a kingdom if you don’t have enough confidence in yourself. No one will have enough confidence to spend the rest of their life with you if you don’t have enough confidence in yourself.
2) It makes you seem more intelligent.
The more you talk, the more likely you are to say something foolish. People love to dominate conversations with pretentious jargon. Depending on the topic, they can realize in seconds or minutes how absurd and pointless it all is. Never put yourself in that situation where they walk away wondering how much of what you said was true or how you could possibly insist on talking about it without knowing anything about the subject.
“Most of the successful people I’ve met are the ones who listen more than they speak.” — Bernard M. Baruch
There’s a lot of truth in these wise words. When you listen—and truly listen, not just to respond, but to understand—you gain a better understanding of the situation, whatever it may be. You reflect on the words, the tones, and the stories being directed at you.
In this way, you can respond with a better understanding of the situation. You’ll analyze and understand what’s happening and be able to give an appropriate response. When someone responds too quickly, especially by interrupting another person, they say something irrelevant and completely useless because they didn’t listen properly.
Think of it like money. The more dollars are printed in society, the less value they have, right? Similarly, the more someone talks to you, the less you value their words. Do the opposite. Let your words carry more weight.
3) Using this in confrontations or sales presentations can be a useful tool for getting more out of them.
It will only work if you maintain your composure. It will have the opposite effect if you remain silent after having a hesitant tone of voice or an anxious expression throughout the conversation.
No one can read minds. They don’t know what you’re thinking, so if you maintain a serious expression, a confident one (speaking aloud during calls) would be even better. Their guess could be as good as anyone else’s. Of course, they can guess what you’re thinking, which they often will, and they may be quite accurate because they were present the whole time, but there will always be a small voice of uncertainty in the back of their minds. The uncertainty will sting at first, but it will grow rapidly the longer the silence lasts.
They will break the silence so you don’t think. They want you to refrain from thinking. It’s not in their interest for you to think for yourself, to make your own decisions, to reflect on the depth of what’s happening. Why would they allow it?
If you broke someone’s lamp, what would be better?:
- A) Tell them and stay quiet so they’ll yell at you.
- B) Tell them, make a joke about it, and laugh together.
The answer is (B). They’ve forgotten the seriousness of what happened because the joke is the most recent memory they’re processing.
But that’s what you want. You want them to break the silence because, often, that’s when your Mercedes discounts or the truth about Sarah start to surface. That little voice of uncertainty is now as powerful as the right hemisphere of their brain.
“They’re reconsidering the Mercedes. Let me make them a better offer to keep them interested.”
“They surely know about Sarah; maybe I can fix it if I come up with a good excuse.”
4) The less you talk, the less likely you are to say something stupid.
How many times have you seen two people talking on TV, and one of them puts their foot in it and says something that could ruin their life, their marriage, or their career, and you just stand there shaking your head and thinking it’s stupid and that it could never happen to you? Well, there are many “me’s” in the world every day.
Why do you think the phrase “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you” was invented? It wasn’t to prevent snitches from beating them up.
Keeping silent is also related to point number 3. The more you talk, the greater the chances that you’ll say something that damages your credibility or diminishes your competence. People pick up on hints and hidden clues in your speech and body language, so even if you don’t say anything harmful, they’ll realize something’s off.
Imagine this scenario. After reading it, close your eyes and visualize it.
John, one of your coworkers, comes in and says, “I just got back from Hawaii. It was amazing. I scuba dived, hiked in the mountains, and ate tons of food! I had a fantastic time!”
If you haven’t already, close your eyes. Reflect.
You feel envious, don’t you? And rightly so! He sounds like he had a blast!
Now do the same with Steve. “I just got back from Hawaii. It was beautiful. I scuba dived, hiked in the mountains, and ate tons. I had a blast! Until it started raining for the rest of the trip, and I was stuck in my hotel room almost the entire time. It kept stopping, so I finally got to enjoy the beach!”
Now close your eyes and think about Steve’s trip.
It’s not the same, is it? It sounded fun, but you went from envy to relief that it didn’t happen to you.
No one needs to know your misfortunes. Sure, you can always vent to your loved ones, but not everyone wants you to be happy like they do. Use the mystery of John’s trip to let your imagination run wild and be amazed.
5) It will create a sense of mystery
“The unknown attracts people.”
— E.A. Bucchianeri
All of the above prepares us to create a mysterious personality. No, I don’t mean magic. Most people’s imaginations run wild, in the realistic sense. If we do all of the above correctly, at least better than the average person, we could literally harness people’s imaginations to our advantage. All this by doing less. Talking less.
It’s vital to keep in mind that confidence is the key to unlocking all these benefits. Again, you don’t need real confidence, and I don’t see why you wouldn’t have it. You’re a beautiful soul, just like everyone else. So act like it. Or the next best thing: fake it till you make it.
As E.A. Bucchianeri says, “The unknown attracts people.” People are naturally drawn to the unknown and the mystery surrounding it. That’s how our minds work. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how our ancestors brought us from the Stone Age to where we are now. They figured out how to capture electricity and conduct it at will. They observed the birds and unraveled the mystery of flight, and now we can fly to the coconut-strewn Bahamas for a well-deserved vacation.
Have you ever had the feeling that someone you know is hiding something, and it’s been bothering you for a long time?
We love mystery because it rescues us from our dull, monotonous, and repetitive lives. Imagine knowing everything about everything and everyone. Just imagine it. How boring would that be!
This is another reason why talking less benefits you. Remember, it’s not about being mysterious. By talking less, you’ll create an aura of subtle mystery. Trying to be mysterious can, and probably will, make you seem like a stalker. And that’s precisely what you want to avoid. A good way to achieve this is by listening more, saying only positive things about yourself, and talking mostly about the other person, which you can do by asking more open-ended questions, such as, “Where are you planning to travel next, and why?”
6) Wait two seconds before speaking
This is a very popular technique in the world of charisma. It took me a little while to get used to it. Waiting two seconds before responding can bring great benefits. Just two seconds!
A good conversation usually involves an exchange of ideas, like a tennis match. Pay attention to the rhythm of the conversation. Most people would respond quickly as soon as you finished speaking, if they didn’t interrupt you first. Rushing to respond shows a desire to impress the other person. They feel the need to jump in and give their opinion. Without realizing it, this haste indicates a fear that the other person will lose interest. So they rush to give their opinion as soon as possible. They want to show that they can contribute something, that they are prepared to face life, full of ups and downs and surprises.
Who doesn’t want to be heard? Everyone. And everyone knows it. If someone rushes to speak and even rudely interrupts another person, it’s generally interpreted as them not having enough people in their life paying attention to them. Although you’re rarely consciously aware of it, it happens subconsciously. Pay attention the next time someone interrupts you or someone else and tries to steal the spotlight.
Instead, mentally count to two before responding. You’ll often realize the person hasn’t finished speaking. They may have paused to build anticipation, take a deep breath, quickly gather their thoughts, or for many other reasons. You’ll convey genuine interest and notice that you’re paying close enough attention to realize they haven’t finished.
Secondly, another important reason to wait two seconds is to create tension between the end of their thought and your response. This can dramatically increase your confidence and self-assurance. It will show others that, deep down, you know people will listen to you.
7) You’ll Be Present
We’ve talked about how vital being present is to being charismatic. By following everything we’ve mentioned above, people will see you in a new light. You’ll listen more, understand others better, and know how to act and respond appropriately, concealing most of your flaws—the ones people tend to reveal. It’s a secret that prepares you to become a better person with minimal effort.
This is how I find opportunities to influence others and connect with them. I listen, listen, and listen, waiting for the opportunity to arise. You can’t do that if you’re the one doing most of the talking.
Important warning: I’m not saying you should stay silent all the time. As I said, a good conversation is like a tennis match, flowing back and forth, but keeping the other person in the spotlight is key. An excellent way to achieve this is, as you may have guessed, by asking open-ended questions.
So, before you speak, analyze the content and ask yourself: Does this really matter? Could it harm me in any way? Could someone use it against me later?
Talking Less to Be Likeable? Not Necessary, According to New Research.
The following article comes from the European Commission’s website and is authored by the research team on current trends in science.
A study reveals that people mistakenly believe they should talk less to be perceived as likeable.
“Let the other person do most of the talking. Talk less to appear more likable. Do it to make friends and persuade others,” advised Dale Carnegie in his self-help book “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” one of the best-selling books of all time. According to findings published in the journal “Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin” (opens in a new window), we have been carrying these erroneous beliefs and prejudices for a long time.
Is Less More, or More Less?
So, should we listen more than we talk, or talk more? Researchers posed this question to a group of university students. To be liked, most believed they should talk less during one-on-one conversations. This belief was incorrect.
Another group of college students participated in a 7-minute conversation with a stranger. This conversation was managed by a computer program that specified who would speak and for how long. The program randomly assigned participants to speak for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, or 70% of the time. Afterward, the participants rated how much they liked their conversation partner. The results showed that participants were perceived as more likable when they spoke for more than half the time.
“Our new research suggests that, all else being equal, it’s advantageous to speak more than usual in conversations with strangers to make a good first impression,” wrote lead author and social scientist Dr. Quinn Hirschi, a senior fellow at the University of Chicago’s Center for Decision Research, in “The Conversation” (opens in a new window). “Research like ours can help people better understand, from a scientific perspective, social interactions with strangers and ultimately become more confident and knowledgeable about how to make a good first impression.”
Direct Conversation: Interesting vs. Likeable
The findings also revealed that people had different criteria for how much they should talk, depending on whether they wanted to be likeable or interesting. They said they should talk less to be considered likeable and more to be interesting.
“We think that other people love to talk about themselves, that they don’t want us to get close to them,” Dr. Hirschi told Vice (opens in a new window). “But it’s a misconception we have about our social environment in general, that we should be more reserved than would be ideal.”
She added, “I think there’s this general stereotype that other people love to generate information, they love to talk. But the data suggested the opposite: that people enjoyed learning more about what others had to say and about other people’s experiences.”
Dr. Hirschi added in “The Conversation,” “It’s possible, and even likely, that completely dominating a conversation—say, talking 90% of the time—isn’t the optimal strategy.” Our research doesn’t suggest that people should dominate their conversation partner, but rather that they should feel comfortable talking more than usual.
Of course, more important than finding the perfect balance between speaking and listening is what we say. This is what matters most, and we don’t need the father of modern self-help culture to tell us that.
Speak Less, Think More: A Path to Effective Leadership
The following contribution comes from the Gasparotto Group website, which defines itself as follows: OUR PROMISE
We partner with leaders and teams to pave the way for them to live, learn, and lead according to their potential—resulting in greater individual productivity, improved team performance, and ultimately, greater profitability for the organization. That is the Impact Chain.
OUR PURPOSE
We have a duty to share our valuable experiences in service of building stronger communities.
Authorship belongs to the team.
Have you ever found yourself in a conversation, waiting for your turn to speak instead of truly listening? It’s a common experience that highlights how much we value our own words over the ideas of others. But what if we changed that dynamic? What if we spoke less and thought more?
In essence, speaking less and thinking more is a fundamental principle of leadership. It encourages us to pause, reflect, and make space for deeper conversations. This not only fosters personal growth but also strengthens our relationships with others, whether at home or leading a team. In this article, we’ll explore why speaking less and thinking more can transform how we communicate and lead.
Table of Contents
The Power of Speaking Less
Why Confrontational Monologues Are a Missed Opportunity
Reflection: The Importance of Thinking More
Practical Strategies for Speaking Less and Thinking More
Overcoming the Fear of Vulnerability
The Impact of Minimalist Communication
Applying These Concepts to Leadership
Are You Ready to Speak Less and Think More?
The Power of Speaking Less
Why do so many of us feel the need to fill every silence with words? Modern leadership often praises assertiveness, but effective communication goes beyond speaking first or speaking loudly. Speaking less is a powerful tool for influence. By speaking less, you allow your words to carry more weight. Research on communication and influence shows that the less you speak, the more others reflect on your words.
Conversations don’t have to be a competition, and not every exchange requires a response. Speaking less doesn’t mean remaining silent forever; it’s about choosing your words carefully and accepting that we don’t always have to win in a dialogue. Sometimes, the most impactful conversations are those in which we simply listen and reflect. The phrase “talk less, think more” reflects this mindset.
When we prioritize speaking less, we open ourselves up to dialogue with people who think differently. This diversity of thought is vital for growth, whether we’re discussing a leadership strategy or engaging in a casual conversation. For example, consider approaching conversations with curiosity rather than an endless debate. Ask questions, listen, and let your mind be filled with new ideas.
Why Fighting Monologues Are a Missed Opportunity
Too often, conversations degenerate into fighting monologues. Instead of actively listening, we prepare our next point, waiting for the opportune moment to demonstrate our brilliance. Consciously or unconsciously, we believe that influence is gained by speaking first, loudly, or defensively when questioned. This can lead to impulsive behavior, where we feel the need to talk more to be heard.
But speaking less and thinking more creates an environment conducive to genuine dialogue. As the saying goes, “The less you speak, the more others will reflect on your words.”
Benefits of Listening More
Talking less and reflecting more naturally leads to listening more. In leadership, active listening is one of the most underrated yet essential skills. It has been proven to improve problem-solving and decision-making. Leaders who listen more are better equipped to understand their teams’ needs, solve complex problems, and make informed decisions.
When we listen more, we learn more. Listening to others allows us to absorb their perspectives, ideas, and points of view. If you think about it, every time you speak, you share what you already know. But when you listen, you learn something new.
The phrase “talk less, listen more” is not just a catchy idea; it’s a leadership philosophy. Leaders who listen more are better equipped to understand their teams’ needs, solve complex problems, and make informed decisions. When you listen more, you don’t just hear words; you understand the context and the emotions behind them.
Here are some practical ways to improve your listening skills:
Pay attention: Focus completely on the person speaking without thinking about your response.
Ask thoughtful questions: Engage with what the other person is saying.
Embrace silence: Don’t rush to fill the silences; sometimes, it’s okay to pause and think before responding.
Reflection: The Importance of Thinking More
Talking less isn’t just about listening to others, but also about giving ourselves space to think more. Too often, we get caught up in the fast-paced world of leadership and decision-making, where speaking quickly seems to be the norm. However, thinking more before we speak can help us avoid impulsive decisions and rash reactions.
Strong leaders reflect deeply on their actions and decisions. Our founder, Mark, says it’s about “strong, yet flexible beliefs.” This mindset encourages us to stand firm in our convictions while remaining open to new information and changing our minds when necessary. Reflection gives us the clarity to recognize when we need to adapt and grow.
Practical Strategies for Talking Less and Thinking More
If you’re ready to embrace the idea of ”talking less and doing more,” here are some practical strategies to get you started:
Practice mindful communication: Before starting a conversation, take a moment to reflect. Is what you’re about to say really necessary? Does it add value?
Engage with diverse perspectives: Strive to converse with people who challenge your way of thinking. Don’t stay in your own little bubble. True growth happens when we talk less and reflect more on different points of view.
Apply the 5-second rule: Pause for five seconds before responding. This gives you time to process what has been said and formulate a thoughtful response.
Overcoming the fear of vulnerability
One of the biggest challenges of talking less and thinking more is the vulnerability it entails. Brené Brown’s work on vulnerability explains why embracing discomfort is crucial for leadership growth and resilience.
Speaking less can feel like surrendering in a world where we’re taught to defend ourselves. But vulnerability is key to growth. The ability to listen, admit our mistakes, and reflect on feedback makes us better leaders.
Remaining silent and absorbing feedback, even when it’s uncomfortable, can be transformative. It’s not about winning every argument, but about learning from every one.
The Impact of Minimalist Communication
When we speak less and think more, our words have a greater impact. Leaders known for their concise communication, such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., understood the value of fewer words, but well-chosen ones. When we choose our words carefully, people pay closer attention. That’s why phrases like “talk less, do more” and “talk less, say more” resonate so deeply. The less you speak, the more people will reflect on your words.
Applying These Concepts to Leadership
At Gasparotto Group, we believe in the power of minimalist communication and reflection. Our leadership programs teach leaders to talk less, think more, and listen better. Whether through experiential learning or consulting, we help teams develop these crucial skills that foster growth and resilience.
Are you ready to talk less and think more?
Talking less and thinking more isn’t just a communication strategy; it’s a leadership philosophy. By embracing these principles, you can transform your relationships, your leadership style, and your approach to personal growth.
So, the next time you’re in a conversation, pause. Listen. Reflect. Then, speak thoughtfully.