An interesting article though the sticky full page ads had me working to try to get back control of page position.

I tend to be a "non-asker", because that's how I was raised: that outside of certain circumstances or sorts of relationships, it's very rude to ask questions that aren't superficial. It's prying. If people want to share deeper information about themselves, they'll volunteer it.

Not saying that it's right, but it's a strongly instilled social more and, at least for me, explains "why I'm like that".

> That said, asking questions is not inherently virtuous. Sometimes people are just hammering away, and I feel like they are trying to trip me up, or measuring me against their standards.

And later.

> “When people are under too much pressure or stress, their defenses go up, and this makes curiosity a challenge,” she said. “Anxiety can easily look like egocentrism.”

Asking questions is a minefield. I am sure there are people who lack curiosity, but I am also sure there are many people that think: " Why go into that minefield on my own initiative when my conversation partner is happy to lead me through?"

> After she’d been talking for about 20 minutes, I began to get an unpleasant, familiar feeling: I bet if I stop asking her questions, she won’t ask me any.

> Sure enough, she wrapped up one answer, then looked at me expectantly, like a dog waiting for a treat. Oh hell no, I thought. No way. I turned to the person next to me, a friend. “She’s a non-asker,” I said.

I use to wait for other people to talk to me. I didn't feel like I knew how to do the social conversation thing, especially because of my dislike of generic small talk.

At some point I made it a point to "practice" this skill, the same as I would practice a sport, messing up terribly at times, but others executing as planned. Thus, I have some grace for people that know how to talk when asked, but lack the thought to ask back. Maybe they only want to talk about themselves, maybe talking to new people makes them nervous or self conscious or whatever it was I felt most of the time. Who knows. Being the one asking the questions puts that person in charge of the flow and direction. You can steer it back or away or around.

I will give it a bit and try to probe for common interest or something that I can talk about as well. If that can be found, then the ones that are simply "bad" (or more likely, un-practiced) at social situations will flow into a give & take conversation if you can find the route to a mutual topic first, hopefully by picking up on small details from their introduction story (the simplest more nature flow, without having to do a hard pivot to the environment context). Think of it as a choose your own adventure book, with you in the driver's seat. For the ones that just want to talk about themselves, that adventure will swiftly end on its own.

An aspect of this is "why are we here?". This conversation needs to be useful for that. Doesn't need and shouldn't be "rudely useful", but still, let's try and make some progress. This is true even if your purpose is to pass the time pleasantly by chatting with your neighbor until your airplane boards. If you are merely humoring that person, then okay you have no interest and there is no point.

This is something that bothers me with "safe" ways to conversation. So safe as to be pointless. And same for "endless answers" and "derailing the conversation" - which might be fun material perhaps in some nerdy way, but might as well kill a conversation.

Striking a conversation is a skill, so is keeping it on track.

Another way of seeing this: Weird way of blaming the victim that suffers from social awkwardness!

I have a couple of friends who I would call non-askers. It drives me crazy and makes me not enjoy spending time with them. When I do hang out with them, I'll ask them what's new and they'll gladly tell me in great detail all the life issues they're facing and what they've been doing lately, but they never reciprocate. As in the article, if I stop asking questions, the conversation just hits a lull and they don't think to return the favor.

On the other hand, the really great askers make you feel like the most important person in the room. You'll answer their questions and they'll ask really good follow-up questions to show they're listening and that they care.

And to go with that, if you ever want people to like you, just ask questions about themselves. People have a tendency to like talking about themselves.

Asking questions is something I've actively had to learn later in life.

I'm universally the asker. I can hang out with a non-asker for about an hour, then I run out of things to ask about. But its not just a problem of reciprocity. It's more generally they don't elaborate or carry forward the conversation in any way, so it feels very laborious. I notice that two friends I feel closest too and never tire of hanging out reciprocate very evenly in conversation.

Silence is always an option. If you kept your mouth shut, maybe people would think you are intelligent.

It's called "tolerating the intolerant". I will listen and acknowledge, but I won't engage in the intolerant play.

It's a macho thing. Big wall of isolation. We're tiny silly little men with our toys and dumb ideas.

You could equally well turn the question around: why are they driving you crazy? They’re just socialized differently. You cannot change other people, you can only change yourself. Meaning, if it bothers you, why not develop strategies that work to have meaningful interactions with both “askers“ and “non-askers“. It’s on you to grow, if you want to, as much as it is on the other to grow, if they want to.

It’s not them that “drive you crazy“, it’s you yourself driving you crazy because you lack a strategy outside of assigning responsibility to the other to change. They don’t do it to personally offend you.

If somebody doesn’t ask, it doesn’t mean they’re not interested in you. If somebody doesn’t share without being asked, it doesn’t mean they’re not up for sharing. It’s really that simple.

Maybe I have no interest in knowing anything deeper about you than what you have to contribute on the subject matter in hand.

> I turned to the person next to me, a friend. “She’s a non-asker,” I said. “I’m done.”

Maybe the problem isn't the "non-askers"

I'd like to think I'm a good conversationalist, but I would hate to hold a conversation with someone like this.

Interesting that there are 25 comments here and none mentioning narcissism.

Our modern world was already in an epidemic of narcissism before social media and since then things have only accelerated. Like the author, I have also noticed that it is somewhat more common with men talking to women and I wonder why.

I see a number of people here saying that they are non-askers or that being a non-asker is a good thing and I think many of them aren't quite understanding the author's definition of non-asker. To me, if we have a conversation and I ask you two things and the conversation devolves into a random subject, that is totally fine. On the other hand, if I'm having a conversation and it's a "questions" conversation - getting to know you, catching up about our kids, discussing our startups etc - and you don't ask a single question then that is very weird. Picture this: we're both parents, my Timmy and your Jones were friends before we moved away. For an hour I've asked questions and heard all about your Jones but you didn't ask a thing about my Timmy. Or: we're students working on our internships, catching up, I've asked all about your internship and how it's going and you just don't care about mine. Or: we're strangers flirting in a bar and I've asked all about you but you haven't asked a thing about me. In all those circumstances I am going to get the (almost always correct!) feeling that you don't care about me. If we're just talking about sports, or politics, or hiking or whatever then there is no need to ask personal questions, but if it's a context where the whole point is personal questions, and a question is reasonably expected, then it's pretty weird if it never comes.

What the author is missing is that just because someone isn’t curious about you doesn’t mean they aren’t curious about anything.

I went to an event where I only really knew 1 other person. We sat at a table full of people we had never met. At least one of the couples talked at length anytime we asked them a question. We even made small comments that would have been perfect opportunities to follow up like "My daughter's bakery had a problem just like that", was there any follow up about "what bakery?" or even an acknowledgement of the comment? Nope, right back into their stories.

I can tell you all about duck eggs, things to put in a food dehydrator, how this woman makes great gluten free treats, except when they don't turn out right, but that's just how baking is... I could go on.

We left the event and the first thing we said to each other was "Wow, I can't believe they didn't ask us a single question".

It's selfish. Period. Just like people that are always late to things, no, it's not a fun personality quirk, it's just rude.

First thing I thought of is this: ‘First Date Going Really Well,’ Thinks Man Who Hasn't Stopped Talking Yet https://theonion.com/first-date-going-really-well-thinks-man...

Has the author never heard of introverts?

People exist on a continuum between two extremes.

On the one extreme you have people who think it's rude to just talk out of nowhere, it's polite to ask questions, and good conversation always starts with a question, and people make sure to frequently alternate asking the next question that changes the topic.

On the other extreme you have people who think it's rude and invasive to just ask questions out of nowhere, it's polite to give space for the other person to talk about whatever they want when they feel ready to, good conversation always starts with someone making an observation about what's on their mind, and follow-up questions are always a thing, but changing the topic is naturally done by the other person then talking about what's on their mind.

Neither is right. Neither is wrong. Most people exist closer to the middle and can adapt easily to either style. They're happy to ask questions if someone doesn't seem to talk otherwise, and they're happy to talk unprompted if the other person doesn't seem to ask them questions.

But if you're at one of the extremes, it can take work to realize that the other person isn't being rude.

If you think someone is "hogging the conversation" and never asking you questions, just talk anyways, even if it seems uncomfortable at first. It's literally what they've been waiting for, and they've probably been wondering why you're not talking and why they have to keep filling the silence since you aren't contributing interesting things to the conversation about yourself.

On the other hand, if someone just doesn't seem to be talking, try asking questions, even if it seems uncomfortable at first. It's literally what they've been waiting for, and they've probably been wondering why you're not asking things and why they have to keep asking you questions to fill the silence since you aren't contributing interesting questions.

But again -- there's no right and no wrong. I'm deeply disappointed with the article as presenting one style as superior to the other.

I have a related problem, which is that I feel like I basically interview people, where I’ll ask follow up questions and so on readily.

But sometimes someone will ask me something high level, like where do you work, and I’ll answer literally, and I sort of expect them to ask a follow up question like I would but they don’t.

It feels like they are expecting me to talk about it at length if I want to, and that my brief answer indicates that I don’t want to talk about it.

Does anyone relate to this problem?

> After she’d been talking for about 20 minutes, I began to get an unpleasant, familiar feeling: I bet if I stop asking her questions, she won’t ask me any. Sure enough, she wrapped up one answer, then looked at me expectantly, like a dog waiting for a treat. Oh hell no, I thought. No way. I turned to the person next to me, a friend. “She’s a non-asker,” I said. “I’m done.”

I'm shocked at how horribly the author may have misinterpreted the situation.

When the person looked at her expectantly... they weren't waiting for a treat, for goodness sakes. They were waiting for the author to do the talking for the next 20 minutes. That expectant look is -- I've been doing all the talking, now it's your turn please!

The author doesn't seem to understand the very basic ideas of how non-askers engage in conversation.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43864532

People that don’t ask questions, don’t show any curiosity at all, don’t reciprocate, and don’t contribute to conversation other than talking at length about themselves - are not worth a second of your day.

I’m sorry but if all you can do is talk about yourself and not have a conversation, you are not worth my time.

If you think it’s okay to let the other person lead the entire conversation maybe you need to learn some social skills