A Lost (nearly) Human Gift - 'Conversation'

Are Meaningful conversations rare? Is it possible to live an entire life and suddenly realize that a real conversation never happened? It can be quite scary to acknowledge this fact for most of us. We will completely deny this recalling the long talks on various issues with friends, family, colleagues and even strangers on a train journey. A conversation, by definition, is a two way phenomenon. Its not about simply speaking, driving point, persuading, imposing, flaunting knowledge or information, sarcasm, criticism, opinion and similar other things; because all these are either inherited or borrowed without honest examination.

Another point worth considering is - are we honest with ourselves and in our thoughts? It is quite amusing to note that even the thought of a 'real question' looks extremely threatening from within. Normally we don't talk to ourselves honestly, or explore subjects of real concern deeply. This could be a reason for lack of good conversation with others including those to whom we consider ourselves the closest. The lack of internal dialogue, which too is a two way phenomenon - Internal Inquiry and then Exploration of that inquiry- might be contributing to lack of real external conversations.

This thing which may be considered to be an individual problem, family or societal issue can be seen all pervasive - in political discourses, geopolitical dialogues and even in intellectual indulgences. It is a common sight in conversations on social media, political debate, religious discussions, environmental & developmental issues etc, - between opposing ideas-, that no one really cares about what the other is bringing to the table. All effort, logic, knowledge and facts goes in driving one's own point. In the phenomenon of common dialogue or the aim of common dialogue between two parties, is not the search for truth with mutual help, but to defeat the other with force, own facts, logic, prejudice, tradition, belief and targeted narrative.

The observance of a bigger cacophony brings back to the question of individual conversationalists. The seemingly endless chit chats, debates, opinions, discussions on variety of issues- at various levels , formal or informal , gives an impression of immersive dialogues everywhere. But this is what the surface looks like.

A real human conversation has to be deeper than all these.

So I turned to AI and asked - Are there studies which explore and interview people about the quality of conversation they have in there lifetime.?

What do they think about their conversation? Do they feel that they have enough or adequate talks or do they feel that in their entire lifetime they have not spoken to anybody with true honesty and full vulnerability without worrying of being judged or forming of an opinion by the other?

How does lack of honest conversation affect people lives?

Here is the result-

Yes — there’s a surprisingly large body of research (qualitative interviews, diary studies, large surveys, lab experiments, and meta-analyses) that looks at the quality of people’s conversations, whether people feel they have “real” honest or vulnerable talks, and what happens when they don’t. Below I summarize the key findings, point to representative studies, explain mechanisms (why honesty/vulnerability matters), and give practical steps you can use to find or create better conversations.

What the research shows (big-picture takeaways)

1. Many people report they lack meaningful, vulnerable conversations. Large surveys and loneliness studies show lots of people say their relationships aren’t “meaningful” or that no one really knows them well. For example, national loneliness surveys found high shares reporting infrequent meaningful interactions and that many feel no one knows them well. (Chapman Institute)

2. People do enjoy deeper conversations when given the chance.Experimental work has shown that when strangers move from small talk to more personal topics, feelings of connectedness and enjoyment often increase — people generally prefer deeper-than-superficial exchanges when the context is safe. (American Psychological Association)

3. Self-disclosure + partner responsiveness = intimacy. Psychological models and diary studies demonstrate that honest disclosure only leads to real intimacy when the other person responds in an understanding, validating way. Repeated cycles of disclosure + responsive reaction build a sense of being known. Without partner responsiveness, disclosure may not produce closeness. (PubMed)

4. Lack of authentic conversation (social disconnection) harms health and wellbeing. Meta-analytic and longitudinal research links weak social relationships and loneliness to worse mental and physical health outcomes — including higher mortality risk, poorer sleep, and cardiovascular strain. In short: being socially disconnected (not having people you can be honest with) is more than emotional — it affects your body and longevity. (PLOS)

5. Expressing inner thoughts helps even when spoken privately. Research on expressive self-expression (e.g., Pennebaker’s writing studies) shows that putting your deepest thoughts/feelings into words — even in writing — produces measurable emotional and some physical benefits, suggesting that the act of articulating vulnerability itself is therapeutic. (PMC)

Types of studies that answer your exact questions

• Qualitative interviews / grounded theory: work like Brené Brown’s grounded qualitative research explores how people experience vulnerability, shame, and authentic talk (why people avoid honesty; what makes people feel safe). (Brown is a high-profile example of this method.) (Farnam Street)

• Event-contingent diary studies: participants record social interactions over days/weeks; these show when disclosure leads to felt intimacy (depends on partner response). (PubMed)

• Large surveys: national loneliness indexes and Pew-style surveys ask whether people feel they have meaningful talks or someone to talk to about mental health. These reveal how common the problem is. (Chapman Institute)

• Lab/field experiments: researchers manipulate conversation depth (small talk → deep questions) and measure connection afterward — showing causal effects of conversational depth. (American Psychological Association)

• Meta-analyses and health research: synthesize many studies to quantify how social connection (or lack of it) affects mortality and health markers. (PLOS)

How do people feel about the conversations they’ve had?

• Many report regret or a sense of “I never really told anyone that” about core experiences.

• Common reasons people don’t speak vulnerably: fear of judgement/shame, concern about burdening others, cultural norms (stoicism), lack of reciprocal partner responses, or simply not having the right context. Qualitative work and surveys repeatedly call these out. (Farnam Street)

How lack of honest conversation affects life (mechanisms & outcomes)

1. Emotional isolation & loneliness — fewer outlets for stress and identity sharing, leading to chronic loneliness. (PMC)

2. Mental-health burden — more depression/anxiety symptoms when people don’t have confidants or can’t be honest. (Surveys & longitudinal work.) (Pew Research Center)

3. Physical health consequences — elevated cardiovascular risk, poorer sleep, and even increased mortality risk linked to weak social ties. (PLOS)

4. Stalled intimacy & mistrust — repeated failed disclosures (or non-responsive responses) teach people not to open up, narrowing future opportunities for closeness. (PubMed)

Practical, research-backed ways to get more honest / vulnerable conversations

(These are things studies show help create safety and intimacy.)

A. Offer and elicit small, graded vulnerability.Start with a moderately personal prompt and escalate based on the other person’s response. Lab studies that move people from small talk to deeper questions show this works. (American Psychological Association)

B. Be a responsive listener.Research shows responsiveness — active listening, validation, follow-up questions — is the key ingredient that turns disclosure into intimacy. If you want others to open up, first show you’re willing and able to respond supportively. (PubMed)

C. Use structured settings or prompts.Set up “deep conversation” sessions (e.g., ask one surprising question per week; use card decks like “36 Questions” or curated prompts). Experiments show structured deep-question exchanges reliably increase closeness. (American Psychological Association)

D. Practice articulating privately if you can’t talk to someone yet.Expressive writing or talking aloud (Pennebaker studies) reduces stress and clarifies thinking; it’s a useful bridge until you find a safe listener. (PMC)

E. Seek multiple channels of support. Surveys show people differ in who they feel comfortable with (friends, family, therapists). If you lack one safe person, diversify — peers, groups, or professionals can help. (Pew Research Center)

**

The above results of the questions posed to AI focuses on issues of loneliness and mental health at individual level. These people are able to express or acknowledge that they don't have quality conversations or they don't find someone to confide in.

However, I am trying to put forth a bigger question about dialogues among 'normal' and 'thriving' people who may not even be aware of the malady of poor quality conversations in their lives.

So I again asked - Is there any data on percentage of people telling about lack of honest conversations in their life? Whether lack of explorative inner dialogue leads to one sided talks on outside world? Lack of need or awareness to indulge in conversation for discovery of truth through mutual help rather than bringing home one's own viewpoint?

Here is what AI says-

There aren’t many direct, large-scale surveys that ask the exact question “Have you ever lacked a single honest, fully vulnerable conversation in your entire life?” — but there are several robust datasets and literatures that measure closely related things (e.g., loneliness, whether people have someone they can confide in, whether people feel comfortable talking about their mental health, frequency of meaningful conversations). Together those give a clear, evidence-backed picture: a sizable minority — and in many samples a majority — report important deficits in meaningful, honest, or vulnerable talk. I’ll summarize the best hard numbers, then explain what the inner-dialogue literature says about whether a lack of inner dialogue produces one-sided external talk (and how strong the empirical evidence for that causal link is).

Key population numbers (what we can report with surveys)

• Loneliness / lack of meaningful interactions: Cigna’s U.S. Loneliness Index (2018–2019) reported that ~61% of U.S. adults felt lonely (the report highlights lack of social support and infrequent meaningful interactions as key drivers). This is a broad measure but speaks to deficits in meaningful, emotionally honest connection at scale. (Chapman Institute)

• Very low social contact: Gallup’s global reporting has highlighted that hundreds of millions go extended periods with little or no contact — e.g., a Gallup report noted ~330 million adults go at least two weeks without talking to a single friend or family member. That doesn’t measure honesty specifically, but it shows an infrastructure problem for honest talk. (Lalr Images)

• Comfort discussing mental-health / private topics: Pew Research finds only about half (and in some item formulations closer to ~57% for close friends) of Americans say they’re very/extremely comfortable discussing mental health with a close friend or family member — meaning a large minority are not comfortable revealing emotionally vulnerable material to people close to them. (See Pew’s May 2024 short read.) (Pew Research Center)

Takeaway: surveys measuring loneliness, lack of contact, and comfort discussing private emotional topics consistently show that substantial portions of populations lack safe channels for honest, vulnerable conversation — though none of those large surveys ask the exact lifetime question you posed.

What the “inner dialogue” (inner speech) literature says

• Researchers distinguish inner speech / self-talk (brief evaluative comments, instructions), internal dialogues (two or more “I-positions” conversing inside the mind), and reflective inner talk (deliberative, perspective-taking inner conversation). Reviews and empirical studies document multiple functions of inner dialogue: self-regulation, planning, self-criticism, and social simulation (imagining other viewpoints). (PMC)

• Dialogical Self Theory (Hermans and others) formalizes the idea that healthy inner dialogue is like a miniature social environment: different “voices” or I-positions negotiate; richer inner dialogue connects to perspective-taking and flexible identity work. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)

Does lack of inner dialogue lead to one-sided external talk?

• Theoretical prediction: yes — many theoretical frameworks predict that limited internal dialogue (less perspective-taking inside the mind) makes people more likely to produce monologic or one-sided external speech (i.e., statements pushed outward to persuade or assert rather than to explore/discover). The logic: inner dialogue helps rehearse alternative viewpoints, anticipate objections, and regulate tone. Without it, conversations can become declarations of one’s own viewpoint rather than joint inquiry. The dialogical self and inner-speech literatures both support this model conceptually. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)

• Empirical evidence: direct, large-scale causal evidence tying low measured inner dialogue to one-sided external conversational style is limited. There are:

  • Laboratory and small-sample studies showing that people who engage in more perspective-taking (cognitive empathy; reflective processing) are more likely to ask questions, show responsiveness, and engage in collaborative sense-making in conversation.

    
    

Bottom line on causality: plausible and theoretically well-motivated, supported by small-scale/experimental work on perspective-taking and conversational behavior, but not yet demonstrated by a single large, population-representative study that measures (a) inner dialogue style, (b) external conversational one-sidedness, and (c) a causal link between them.

**

So no large scale study has been carried out on above proposition. But theoretical and laboratory level experiments demonstrate the plausiblity of the interconnection.

The limited research, figures on lonliness & lack of good dialogue , philosophical rationale, and all visible growing ideological divide, points towards the following:

(i)The aim and basic framework of popular conversation is flawed, since it is not for discovery of truth but merely for exchange of information or opinion.

(ii) These habits are built early in childhood and becomes hardened towards adulthood.

(iii) There is lack of genuine self inquiry in individuals. An individual with a bent of mind & trained to explore truth will do so in conversations also. The society rewards confidence and surety, not query , risk and uncertainty. The habits, naturally mould into rigidity.

Therefore, to have meaningful conversations in the forums that shape nations and mankind, the inquiry and dialogue should begin from within.