It comes in many forms: from the cry of outrage from a horrible tragedy, to the crowd’s collective “Oh” at a realized answer for Jeopardy. Even in its smallest form as a thoughtful nod to prod your friend’s storytelling, we are all conditioned with our reactions.
A reaction is our gut instinct, go-to, and it is intrinsically tied to our core behaviors. In dialogue, it is directly tied to our default pattern of thinking. Caught off-guard, a typically pessimistic person’s reaction to a tragedy would be grim and somber—regardless as to whether or not they voice these personal reactions aloud.
On the converse of these are responses. These are the words chosen carefully, reflected upon, and often are the ones we have to step back for a moment in order to formulate. Responses are not just exclusive to what we actually say, they are simply not the default setting. Instead of a reaction of outrage or horror at a neighborhood tragedy, the response could be sympathetic, trying to learn more of the news or even how to assist.
In even more docile everyday dialogues, the default setting on which reactions sit has a large impact on one’s interactions with other people. Whether your instinct to wave at a familiar face or pretend to be busy, to search on your phone or to simply people-watch—these are all aspects of core behavior that reactions feed upon. They are more particularly charged by strong emotions: anger, hate, joy, inspiration, love, and even numbness. Each pokes at core beliefs and experiences to get the reaction.
Reactions are not inherently bad, just responses are not inherently good. A gut reaction to hug a grieving friend could wind up much better than any thought out response that could potentially cause more harm than good.
Words and conversation are not a panacea, a cure-all. In fact, running and talking in circles can often be more detrimental than most reactions. Often, conversation loops rely on one’s reactions: the instinct to do good and be comforting conflicting with the stubbornness of the other conversationalist, who may be manipulative as their default reaction. In such a case, responses are needed more than reactions; where both individuals need to step back from their default settings to either compromise or turn away from the conversation entirely. A stubbornness and unwillingness to see beyond one’s own default, or unwilling to respond in a way that recognizes the defaults of the other, ultimately results in the conversation loops that can seem impossible to escape. It is in moments such as those that the expressions, ‘We agree to agree’ or ‘We agree to disagree’ have bloomed into purpose.
It has been said that those who do not recognize the humanity in their enemy are doomed to become them. The same is true of conversation, enemy or no. If we do not recognize the reactions and defaults of other people, we will find ourselves in endless loops of charged emotional reactions and thoughtless responses. It is important to be aware of what and when the default setting applies.
