Yup, you get a lot of people complaining about the pointlessness of small talk, but the reality is that small talk is social glue. People want to work with people they like, and you only get that by having some level of casual ease with one another. Being 100% business all the time is the opposite of casual ease.
Only with some people. Trying to do smalltalk with me, will not make me your friend. I simply hate smalltalk. (Talking unimportant things for the sake of talking)
But there are a million of other interesting non buisness things I am willing to talk about at length. I also like to joke around and be silly. But that requires a connection, you won't get with me while talking about the weather. And I know many people are like me, most just adopted to "like" smalltalk, as they think this is the way it has to be.
It can be as simple as “hey have you seen {shared colleague} recently?” Or “Hey man, you get into any new hobbies recently?”, or “I’ve been dabbling in {x} tech, have you done anything like it or are could recommend an alternative based on {personal information you got from collaborating with this person}”
The main point in making is that you need to continue in performing these relationship maintaining activities _before_ you need said persons help.
For the extremely oblivious who haven’t researched any game theory but know some comp sci, imagine that relationships with all other humans needed regular mechanical Turk transactions with yourself or they will be identified as high risk groups that shouldn’t be afforded any leeway.
Well, but I am quite good in determining if another person is just trying to be (fake) friendly, so they can get my help later and I am not interested in that and smalltalk won't create that bond for me. I am interested in genuine connections.
So if someone asks this question "Hey man, you get into any new hobbies recently" and is actually interested in my response - then this is simply not smalltalk anymore by my definition. And I gladly answer. And maybe form a bond. And of course help each other later.
But if I feel, it is just a mechanical and calculated approach to bond with me, well, no thank you. But I also help people without doing smalltalk if I can.
also rather mundane conversation can be fun if done in the right manner. this video talks more on the right manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRG-YubP1rw
Can I presume that this is the burner account of some particular billionaire if you are that good at recognizing the social situations?
I'm pretty certain GP isn't as good as he thinks he is. Literally no one can tell the difference between me making smalltalk because I think I may need you later and me making smalltalk because I am genuinely interested in you.
The reason I say this is because even I cannot tell tell the difference, because I tend to find something interesting in everyone. I've made smalltalk with literal ditch-diggers, and two weeks later with a billionaire, and the conversations were both pretty much the same.
Then you are acting natural. I mean cold calculated attempts to bond to benefit. And nice empty small talk as an art to get there. This is the small talk I mean and don't like. Talking about small things in a fun way I enjoy
======================
I think you might be using a different definition of "smalltalk" than most people.
Me, for example ... I don't talk about weather or sport. I won't pretend to be interested in 'em either.
And yet, I have no problem engaging even strangers for 30m or more at a time. I just pick something in context and mention it.
For example, if you can strike up, and then continue, a conversation with the person next to you in line for boarding a flight, then you're golden. I once lead with "That's a damn small plane[1]. I hit my head the first time I went into one of those." to a tall gentleman behind me in the line, and had a 30m conversation with someone who turned out to be a very interesting litigator.
I mean, if you're in a specific place, at a specific time, and cannot find anything contextual to use as a conversation starter, then I don't think that the problem is that the whole world is too dumb[2] for your level of "smalltalk" topics.
When you "connect", you're not looking to marry the person, just find something you both have in common. If you run into too many situations where you have absolutely nothing in common with people around you, you are the problem, not the people around you.
[1] Embraer 139, or something. Can't remember now.
2] I dunno how else to interpret "talking for the sake of talking".
"then I don't think that the problem is that the whole world is too dumb[2] for your level of "smalltalk" topics."
I also don't think other people are too dumb to have conversation with me.
But I do value silence more, than well "talking for the sake of talking".
Meaning 2 people thinking they need to do smalltalk, but both people are not that interested in the other person. Casual blabla to pass the time. Or artificial attempts to "network". (Won't work like this) I can smile about such awkward conversations, but not take part in it.
Otherwise I can make deep connections very fast with completely random strangers and talk about anything. If I feel like it.
I'm not playing a strong Devil's Advocate for this thread, my comments are explanations and not excuses - I just don't like people, and I would need to be convinced that relationships are worth having, before I cared about how to have them. If I wanted lots of platonic business relationships I would be interested in how to have them.
It's certainly an indication that I should maintain better relationships... but it's vastly easier to keep them minimal.
I hear people now: "but opportunities!". Can't miss what you already have.
To know I have a friend (of a certain class, at least) I have to be ready to effectively double the size of my life. It's already been pretty overwhelming. Different types of resilience involved or being developed
Back on topic: I find it's less about the people and more... everything in between. The act of sorting; rarely worth the effort. Manufacturing productive business relationships has been far simpler than personal. Where some find benefit joining them... I actually enjoy space between.
Why is a transactional relationship considered bad? And why would one consider a transactional relationship as something not offering value?
I don't like small talk, but if I like the person I would try to help them anyway with their transactional request, with the expectation that I might have a similar transactional request at some point in the future. If the relationship is equally transactional in both directions, I don't see a problem with that.
I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department. Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful time.
That said, this is far from universal in academia, and many academics do enjoy small talk and prefer to keep in touch regularly.
I don't think any sort of relationship can be called "bad" or "good" in the abstract -- but a lot of people consider transactional relationships "bad" in the sense that they don't like them. And, if you want to build relationships with people, often you have to do it on their terms, or at least try to meet them halfway.
You're giving the person an opportunity in this case. You're also rolling out the red carpet to make it good for them.
Usually when people talk about transactional relationships, it means they only call on you when they need something from you. For example, calling someone up every 5 years when you need a referral or you want them to solve a problem for you.
I was commenting on people who’s behavior creates transactional relationships when they wanted something with a deeper interpersonal relationships, and people whose behavior causes transactional relationships but also have nothing of value to make the transaction worth it.
If a billionaire calls me up once every five years for a favor but pays me a couple of million for it, I’ll take the call any day.
If someone I met at college a few times calls me up once every few years when they got laid off and only are talking to me for a reference but are never in a position to to help me, what reason do I have to help them other than a feeling of charity?
I guess I’m saying you shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.
This! However if you'll allow me—I think it's worth saying we shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really okay with that same behavior being given back to us because of millenia of social, communal evolution.
That’s an argument I think I agree with but am not ready to defend tonight.
It’s much easier to defend the point that if you treat me solely as a resource to be exploited then you shouldn’t be surprised if others or myself treat you solely as a resource to be exploited
I have absolutely gotten similar requests from students through my Alumni organization and have accepted them in the past. I don't see a problem here.
Here is a direct quote from a request that I have accepted in the past(redacted a little): "Hi <name>, I am a MS in CS student at <university> graduating in spring '25 and I saw your profile on <university>'s alumni page. I'm pursuing a career in software engineering and I'm wondering if we can connect and chat sometime about your career and the culture at <company>."
Transactional relationships are fine if that's the deal up front. I have a lot of transactional relationships with freelancers, contractors, and repair people. I call them up needing something and I'm going to pay them for it. The transaction.
I dislike transactional relationships when they're disguised as personal connections or friendships. People who pretend to want to get to know you, but they really just want to be able to call on you when they need something from you. Often when you call on them for something they're nowhere to be found.
Transactional relationships can be fine if both parties are on with it, but you actually need to bring something of value.
If you and I have a fully transactional relationship, then why would I do anything for you if you won’t/can’t do anything for me?
I'm someone who very highly values social connections, but finds it a little bit awkward to just "shoot the shit". I really enjoy interacting with people based on shared experiences, of whatever type -- but as you say, many people really enjoy interactions which are lower-key.
You're not wrong, but interacting with others on their terms rather than yours can be a bit challenging at times, and easy to get wrong.
It doesn’t need to be an onerous amount of effort, but reaching out to people to shoot the shit once even a year is often enough to maintain the relationship for professional networks at least.
In software we have an unfortunate amount of people who don’t value social connections at all so we end up with a large tranche of people who can’t get past the “but why would I talk to them without a specific reason?” argument and then lament why all of their relationships end up transactional, or even better lament why no one will help them specifically because all their relationships are transactional and they aren’t offering anything of value