Whispers

We have all been guilty of a little tittle-tattle every now and then. It’s fun. Someone I know describes it as a way of connection and information exchange. Shared ground always makes it easy for us to connect, but information exchange is a funny way to put it; since when did gossip become a currency in our social systems? And even if it did, there has to be an outcome of trading these stories, right? Does it help you make better decisions, does it build credibility, do you form more connections? Or is it just a facade? Fundamentally, it is a talk about an absent person. But it is not mere information transfer; it has an interpretive layer to it. Talking about someone’s experience, in their absence, leaves the narrative to the discernment of the speaker. The narrative is then the pseudo-power that the speaker holds. I say pseudo because it does several things at once while not really having the power. Connection, synergy, enforcing a norm, or just fun. On the other hand, factual, objective information, like data, history, and public events, are hard to gatekeep. This genuinely influences the quality of our decisions, or supports us in deriving learnings from past decisions. At the end of the day, gossip is just a story, with some objective bits and the rest a narrative. A well-groomed story with our interpretations. Calling it an information barter would be an incomplete frame. Like calling a blade without a handle a knife. And isn’t that what makes us human, the freedom to experience things however we want to, not what someone tells us to? The subjectivity of the narrative, or our interpretation, is where the most fun and harm lives. And fully internalising the incompleteness of such conversations, without awareness, can create a scavenging behaviour. Every interaction becomes an opportunity to collect more breadcrumbs, to build a map. A newsmonger has a breadth of stories (which, by virtue, lacks depth). And I have noticed that many appear to be good listeners; they create safety, withhold obvious judgements, and make people feel heard. That is why many people open up to them, and consequently the flywheel of narrative accumulation develops. They often treat interaction as a micro-exercise in map-building, and as a test of their narrative. Often you can find in them a generosity in information sharing. To build reciprocity. Because reciprocity is an attribute of the engine of such exchanges. Now, this is a very finely calibrated skill: to withhold and share information in a way that builds trust but does not expose vulnerability. It is also paradoxical, because if you are confiding in someone, their orientation may not be towards listening to you, but rather towards a strategy of collection. And it is indistinguishable from the outside. All things considered, there are areas where chatter can be genuinely helpful. It is a great way to understand the norms of the community you are part of. It also helps in making sense of events, especially the confusing ones. It is also a great warning network, maybe that is why a part of our brain loves these juicy stories? To keep us safe? The distinguishing feature, though, is the orientation of the listener. Is it oriented towards action and understanding, or towards mere consumption?