I came here to point this out - this is how people from California communicate. They simply take turns talking about themselves, orbiting around the same subject until somebody says something with enough gravity to drag the conversation into its next orbit. It was really off-putting when I first arrived, I got used to it over time, though I still don't like it and it's sad to see it used as the default model for this type of application.
>They simply take turns talking about themselves ...
This so much!
One thing about the UX of all conversational products, in stark contrast with real conversations, is that it forces you into a dynamic of "one question, one answer", "one message, one reply". I can imagine it could be pretty hard to break this paradigm, but for me it's like the equivalent of the uncanny valley in this context. No matter how good the replies are, if I'm forced into this dynamic, I just know that I'm talking to a robot.
Oh my. This so much. To be honest, it came across as incredibly selfish and self-centered when I was there, as a person from the east coast. It was as if people talk at each other instead of with each other.
One element of this I think is that California is highly individualistic. The people there ARE self-absorbed. It is a celebrated cultural value. It's the exact mirror of Tall Poppy Syndrome. No one cuts you down for talking about your own interests and uniqueness instead of collectivist and egalitarian topics like sports or the weather.
There's also a less intricate social code that comes from mixing together many people from different cultures. In a high-context, temporarily stable society, things get stratified and the litte social lubricants, expectations, and niceties get written into the socal contract and within the structure of the language itself (formal vs. informal forms). In a low-context and dynamic society, you are basically free to communicate without referencing the rulebook on what you should be saying or how you should be saying it and you bring less expectation that the other party will respond in some particularly scripted way.
I'm not sure this is something unique to California. Travelling around, it seems that it's more correlated to people's income level. Richer people tend to talk about themselves more, in both Asia and EU. Maybe it's because they are able to experience more given their wealth/status, thus having more topic to talk about. Or maybe they get wealthy because of that self-centric attitude.
In short, I don't think it's a California unique characteristic.
> Richer people tend to talk about themselves more, in both Asia and EU. Maybe it's because they are able to experience more given their wealth/status, thus having more topic to talk about. Or maybe they get wealthy because of that self-centric attitude.
Interesting. My experience (Poland/EU) is pretty much the reverse. That is, I expect a richer person to take less about themselves, and more about the topic at hand. That is (generalizing), a rich person will say things like, "$Person is a great $X-maker, you should check them out", or "yeah, X is great, especially ${some refined form}", whereas a less well-off person will keep saying things like "yes, I love X", or "I hate X", or "I'm taking X classes", or "I know ${list of famous people doing X}". My provisional explanation is that the rich person doesn't feel the need to prove anything to you, or to themselves, so they can just talk about the topic itself, instead of trying to position themselves within it.
I often interpreted this as a conservative interpersonal communicative approach. It is safer to talk about yourself than to ask questions from people because there risk of inadvertently saying something offensive.
Sure, you will find people that are a bit more self absorbed and would just pong about themselves.
But there are so many conversational constraints- asking “why” is aggressive, direct feedback is discouraged, slipping pronouns or other identity traits is a minefield, etc. You should not follow up when others say something because they were being polite and you’re putting them in evidence…
If you get to engaged in a conversation people can feel weirded out, like you’re supposed to go through the motions but that’s it.
Not talking also can get you in trouble.
Talking about yourself is probably the safest thing to do.
I actually find it easier to converse by asking polite general questions about what the other person just said about themselves. (Probably not something like "why?", more like "oh cool, how was it?") Because so many people's most comfortable topic is themselves, it can put them at ease. Can't go overboard with it though.
I think if you find that engaging with people is such a minefield that's probably on you. It's not hard at all to have an engaging conversation with someone without accidentally offending them...
People talk about themselves because conversations can be intimate - they're a two way street where both parties are sharing and relating.
I believe the OP. There's always a minefield when cultures collide. This is evident when someone from the US Midwest/Mountain West moves to SF for work. Just very different norms for how interactions are structured, and how good faith is communicated.
Because all involved parties basically look and sound the same, they judge one another according to their own local standards, instead of recognizing that they are actually interacting with a different culture.
Midwest small talk is something to be cherished. I remember growing up having pleasant conversations with people. Moving west I found that conversations are more like a combative 1-upping of each other. It gets tiring listening.
When I talk to someone and they share an experience, I like to ask questions, or relate to the experience by sharing my own. This is not "self absorbed" it's really normal...
California is Borg. All will be assimilated.