I view human interactions like a sandwich. In a sandwich, there are 2 outer layers of dry, flavorless fluff squares and 1 inner layer of complex, savory, nutrient-dense goodness. The outer exists just to hold the good stuff together.
In human interactions, the deep, thoughtful, explorative discussions often only exist after a shallow, self-conscious, meaningless catch up and end before a shallow, self-conscious, meaningless closing. Why does this feel like a social obligation? Why is it perceived as unnatural or forward or socially inept when the dry outer layers are ignored? I think about most things in terms of reason. If something exists simply because of a social convention or standard practice, without having logic behind it, its lack of point for existing is enough to make me ignore it.
This is often perceived as very east coast or direct. I’d agree, but I'd also say it’s genuine and efficient. Genuine because I don’t want you to ask me anything that you don’t actually care to hear the answer to or say anything backed by societal obligation rather than individual truth. And vice versa. Efficient because life is short. Think of how much time we spend on pleasantries when we really could’ve been opening up about a true concern or relating on a like value or convening on a common mission? And as for work, pleasantries distract from the purpose of the meeting/call/agenda, getting straight to the point saves time and mental energy for what really matters.
This has become a useful filter. Those who shy from immediately getting real are not usually ones who I’d prioritize having around. Radical transparency and open-mindedness are values of mine, I prefer to surround myself with those who feel similarly.