Since I was young, I have loved deep conversations, either personal, philosophical or controversial. But I wonder if those of us who make a hobby of romping in mental space are less tolerant of superficial conversations. For certainly superficial conversations grease society and keeping things light can help us all see our mutual humanity. But just returning from a 4th-of-July picnic, I am reminded how at large get-togethers most conversations are about the mundane, without real opinions — we walk away not knowing each other. People hide their religious thoughts, their political thoughts and our their thoughts on any controversial area: sexuality, tattoos, divorce, food preferences etc…. Some people are more prone than others to tip-toe around in politeness. And some of us are more prone to habitually (and perhaps perversely) steer conversation toward the controversial. *Sabio raises his hand.
So, do you think the disdain for the superficial is just a bigoted response of mental hobbiests? To what degree does the spectrum from those who engage in nothing but superficial, non-committal talk to those who are rabble-rousing controversialists depend on genetics and temperament. I wonder about my reflexive self-righteous distain of the superficial.