How many times have you had a conversation with someone who talks at you rather than actually engaging in a meaningful two, or three way dialogue? These people usually spend their time talking about themselves and their likes and dislikes but rarely allow any other contributions other than the cursory "yes, I know" or a nod of the head in agreement. When the time comes for the other party to attempt to contribute to the one way dialogue that is normally the cue for the monopoliser of the conversation to depart.

 

There are many who cannot hold an intelligent conversation that allows all opinions and arguments to be contirbuted. It is surprising that medical science has never been able to identify or diagnose this "condition" bearing in mind that it would be fairly easy to establish.

 

You would simply need to randomly record various conversations to verify the "condition".

 

If you conducted a simple word count of how many words were utterred by all parties in the conversation I would have no doubt that the people who suffer from "onversationitis" would score overwhelmingly high - possibly as much as a four or five to one ratio. Of course, some people are able to express themselves more succinctly than others but those who have the "onversationitis" affliction always seem to need more words to express a simple concept than others.

 

This blog may sound a little flippant or sarcastic but the fact is that the perfect conversationalist is one who allows all parties to the conversation equal time. If the conversation is one sided it becomes a "oneversation" and that is of little or no value to anyone.