I have this theory that I am currently referring to as my 3-for-1 theory. It deals with a conversation between Person A and Person B (which may include more than one person).
-The conversation is premeditated by Person A
-Person A is an introvert
-The conversation is of some signifigance to Person A
Theory: For every conversation that fits the above description, Person A actually experiences 3 conversations: One before the conversation (C1), one during the actual conversation (C2), and one after the conversation (C3).
C1: Person A plans the conversation during C1, preselecting phrases to use during C2 and anticipating Person B’s response. Person A may even prepare a rebuttal during C1.
C2 is self-explanatory.
C3: perhaps the most masochistic of the phases. Person A analyzes the results of C2 during C3, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each person’s performance and imagining how the conversation could have been more advantageous for Person A. More often than not, Person A wishes he/she had said something different rather than wishing that Person B had responded differently. Person A chooses a new plan of attack (that probably will never be implemented) and anticipates Person B’s responses in the new conversation.
Sometimes Person A’s perception of C1 is so realistic he/she forgets to have C2. Then Person B is upset when he/she thinks that Person A didn’t want to reveal something, when in fact Person A thought he/she already told Person B whatever it is that needs revealing.
Are you confused yet?