Why We Sound Unconvincing in Conversations — Even When We Mean Well

 

Preparing for a public speech is difficult enough for most people. Yet public speaking is, in many ways, easier than ordinary conversation.

A speech has structure. The roles are relatively clear. One person speaks, others listen. You can rehearse your wording, prepare your examples, and anticipate objections. Even if the audience reacts emotionally, the interaction is limited and predictable.

Conversations are different.

A conversation is alive. It changes direction unexpectedly. Someone may interrupt after only a few seconds. Another person may suddenly challenge you, misunderstand you, or react emotionally. And in that moment, memorized sentences often collapse.

This is why effective communication in conversations is not primarily about memorizing what to say. It is about psychological clarity.

Before an important conversation, we should not only ask ourselves “What do I want to say?” but also:

·        What objective information do I want to communicate?

·        What part of myself do I want to disclose?

·        What kind of relationship do I want to establish or maintain?

·        What outcome do I actually want from the other person?

Do I want understanding? Respect? Cooperation? Obedience? Sympathy? Distance? Approval?

The difficulty is that human beings rarely have only one intention at a time.

Mixed Feelings Create Mixed Signals

One of the most common reasons people appear unconvincing is inner contradiction.

We often have mixed feelings toward the other person. Consciously, we may want harmony and closeness. Unconsciously, we may also feel irritation, fear, resentment, envy, or distrust.

These conflicting emotions leak into communication.

A person may say warm and friendly words while their facial expressions, tone of voice, posture, or timing communicate tension or hostility. Others notice this immediately — often without consciously understanding why.

Human beings are extraordinarily sensitive to inconsistency.

When verbal language and body language contradict each other, people usually trust the nonverbal message more.

That is why somebody can sound technically polite yet still appear cold, aggressive, insecure, or dishonest.

The problem is often not lack of eloquence. It is psychological ambivalence.

We Rarely Speak Only to One Person

Another complication is that conversations are often social performances.

We are usually not speaking only to the person in front of us. We are also thinking about what other people may think of us during the interaction.

This creates additional psychological pressure and often produces contradictory behavior.

A typical example is parenting.

Imagine a child behaving badly. Many parents react differently in private than they would in public. At home, they may remain calm, patient, or tolerant. But on a crowded street or in a supermarket, the same behavior suddenly feels socially threatening.

Why?

Because now the parent is no longer dealing only with the child. The parent is also dealing with invisible observers.

The internal dialogue changes:

·        “What will these people think of me?”

·        “Will I look weak?”

·        “Do I seem incompetent as a parent?”

·        “Will others think I have no authority?”

As a result, the parent may become harsher, louder, or more authoritarian than they truly want to be.

This creates inner conflict:
one part wants understanding and patience,
another part wants social respect and control.

And once again, these contradictory motives make communication less convincing.

Conversations Inside Relationships

The same mechanism appears in marriages and partnerships.

For example, a husband may suddenly discipline a child more aggressively in public — not because the child’s behavior objectively requires it, but because he fears being judged by his wife as weak or passive.

In this situation, he is no longer communicating only with the child. He is simultaneously communicating with his spouse, the surrounding people, and his own self-image.

The conversation becomes psychologically overloaded.

This is one reason emotionally tense conversations often feel exhausting. Several conversations are happening at the same time:

·        the visible conversation,

·        the internal conversation with ourselves,

·        and the imagined conversation with observers.

Convincing Communication Requires Inner Alignment

People who appear naturally convincing are not necessarily more intelligent or verbally gifted.

Very often, they are simply more internally aligned.

Their words, emotions, intentions, and body language point in the same direction.

This does not mean they never experience conflicting emotions. Everyone does. But convincing communicators are usually more aware of those contradictions and therefore less controlled by them.

Instead of trying to memorize perfect sentences, it is often more productive to clarify our own inner position before speaking.

Questions like these can help:

·        What do I genuinely feel toward this person?

·        What outcome do I truly want?

·        What am I afraid might happen?

·        Am I trying to impress observers?

·        Am I speaking honestly, or merely performing a role?

The clearer we become internally, the clearer and more convincing our communication becomes externally.

---

Want to overcome insecurity and frustration with the foreign language(s) you’ve already started learning? Or maybe you want to learn a new language without going through endless standard course levels — but feel like you’re not making progress?

Grab a copy of my book: “The GO Method – Breaking Barriers to Language Learning” on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/GO-Method-Breaking-barriers-language/dp/1973118688

💡 Free Preview: Get the first two chapters for free by subscribing to my weekly newsletter, packed with tips and resources on communication psychology in international, multicultural, and multilingual contexts.
Click here to subscribe

 

--

Communication Psychology and HR: in small and practical lessons once a week.

With a focus on international and multilingual business conversations.

Gerhard Ohrband is a psychologist from Hamburg/Germany, specialized in Communication Psychology and HR. He consults individuals and companies worldwide (in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian and Russian) on how to avoid costly misunderstandings and handle conflicts with employees and clients.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can Conflicts Be Productive?

Image
 We often hear that conflict is inherently negative—but is that always true? Should we avoid conflicts at all costs, or can they be catalysts for innovation, clarity, and growth? In a TED Talk, Margaret Heffernan argues that conflict—particularly when paired with rigorous debate—sharpens thinking and leads to better outcomes. She recounts how epidemiologist Alice Stewart discovered a link between prenatal X-rays and childhood cancer, and was strengthened in her conviction by collaborator George Kneale, who relentlessly tried to disprove her findings—and couldn’t. Types of Workplace Conflict Research categorizes conflicts into three main types: 1.      Personal Conflict This involves interpersonal issues—clashes of personality, style, or emotional friction. It's often linked to hostility, dissatisfaction, and lower group cohesion 2.      Task Conflict This arises from disagreements over the content of tasks—opinions, ideas, goals, ...
Read more

What does good communication really mean?

There are of course lots of definitions of communication. There are lots of definitions of what good communication should be. Let me add one which is probably not very original.  It is inspired by classical economic literature, by the nature of exchanges. I like to see communication like an exchange of goods and services, a voluntary exchange like in barter or in selling and buying. According to classical economic authors, such an exchange occurs if there is a double coincidence of wants, if what I am giving, what I am offering, a good or a service, is for me less valuable than the thing I want to obtain from the other person. And for the other person it's the other way around. The thing they are giving me is less valuable than the good or service I am offering them. Therefore, by definition, after the exchange everybody is better off. If there's no double coincidence of wants then we don't enter into this exchange. We wait for somebody or something else. If we appl...
Read more

What if people have negative expectations of your language skills

Recently, I heard bestselling author Tim Ferriss mentioning that what helped him grow and experiment was that people around him, at that time, had so low expectations of him. It took the pressure out of the experience, because it gave him the permission to fail.  Typically, we want the people around us to be encouraging and telling us that they believe in us and in our potential. Psychological research on this issue is, of course, mixed. Why? Because, as with many other practical questions, the results depend on a number of factors. Whether people around us have high or low expectations of us is most probably not the only or even decisive factor. However, human beings have a preference for mono-causality. We want to interpret events by a single cause. Now, what can we say, based on research and personal experience? Yes, for some people, it may take a lot pressure from us, if we are not expected to be successful. This, of course, can take a wider spectrum of manifestations...
Read more