I recently had two very powerful, intimate and meaningful conversations with individuals I’d never met before. One was at a birthday party. The other after a memorial service. In both instances, the chat had been immediately deep and moving… to me anyway. Afterwards, I felt the urge to have more. In both cases, we exchanged details and I sent a follow-up message. But in both instances, neither responded. It got me wondering if we should have had more smaller talk in order, perhaps, to form a more solid base. Was it too much, too quick? Is it that such an exchange needs no furtherance. Or maybe it’s that the optimal value exchange has happened through the relative incognito nature of it? Maybe they’ll reply a long time later?
Has this ever happened to you? I’d love to have your feedback and experiences!
DIALOGOS - Meaningful Conversation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Just love how you analysed this Dillon. Tremendous insights in what you wrote. On the one hand I felt like there was more to be had. On the hand, don't be too needy or greedy. The 'journey' of the conversation we had was already wonderful!!
It could be that they really embraced the conversation in more ways than ever imagined and may in time respond or they did not receive your message being that they were new contacts. Regardless, I always believe there is a reason for those encounters. “In every walk with nature, one’s receives far more than he seeks.” John Muir
I've certainly encountered instances like this before. I like how you noted, "maybe it's that the optimal value exchange has happened through the relative incognito nature of it." I never thought about these instances that way, but there is merit to that point.
Having a deep and meaningful conversation with a stranger does not indicate to me that it was 'too much, too quick.' A conversation is between two people, each deciding how much they are willing to share and discuss. The two individuals you met were willing to participate in a moving discussion, so I wouldn't get too hung up on feeling like it was too long a talk.
The chance encounter/one-off deep conversation is rare; thus, it might stimulate a different urge to follow up for each conversation participant.
The act of following up, too, can be impeded by a host of personal, professional, or other circumstances you don't know. While I always try to maintain a 0-inbox life (replying to all of my messages), unforeseen circumstances can always hinder my ability to be prompt and responsive.
While I can't speak about their desire or willingness to follow up with you, I see few reasons why they wouldn't want to engage in further conversation. Unless some/all of the topics discussed were personally difficult or caused deep emotional turbulence, each of your conversationalists would be willing to find time to continue speaking.
Lastly, following up is the essential step in this process, which you've already done! Even if only 1/10 of those you follow up with respond, you've ensured more riveting conversations than if you chose to leave the discussions where they stood. Conversations don't always get to continue, and that's ok. However, failing to follow up when you feel there is more to be said is where the actual problem lies.
Just love how you analysed this Dillon. Tremendous insights in what you wrote. On the one hand I felt like there was more to be had. On the hand, don't be too needy or greedy. The 'journey' of the conversation we had was already wonderful!!
It could be that they really embraced the conversation in more ways than ever imagined and may in time respond or they did not receive your message being that they were new contacts. Regardless, I always believe there is a reason for those encounters. “In every walk with nature, one’s receives far more than he seeks.” John Muir
Which makes me think of the marvels of having conversations while walking in nature! :)
I've certainly encountered instances like this before. I like how you noted, "maybe it's that the optimal value exchange has happened through the relative incognito nature of it." I never thought about these instances that way, but there is merit to that point.
Having a deep and meaningful conversation with a stranger does not indicate to me that it was 'too much, too quick.' A conversation is between two people, each deciding how much they are willing to share and discuss. The two individuals you met were willing to participate in a moving discussion, so I wouldn't get too hung up on feeling like it was too long a talk.
The chance encounter/one-off deep conversation is rare; thus, it might stimulate a different urge to follow up for each conversation participant.
The act of following up, too, can be impeded by a host of personal, professional, or other circumstances you don't know. While I always try to maintain a 0-inbox life (replying to all of my messages), unforeseen circumstances can always hinder my ability to be prompt and responsive.
While I can't speak about their desire or willingness to follow up with you, I see few reasons why they wouldn't want to engage in further conversation. Unless some/all of the topics discussed were personally difficult or caused deep emotional turbulence, each of your conversationalists would be willing to find time to continue speaking.
Lastly, following up is the essential step in this process, which you've already done! Even if only 1/10 of those you follow up with respond, you've ensured more riveting conversations than if you chose to leave the discussions where they stood. Conversations don't always get to continue, and that's ok. However, failing to follow up when you feel there is more to be said is where the actual problem lies.