I seek and value friends that DO ask about me, and then try to remind myself to not take it for granted, and return the favor to them!
This gives some additional lens, though, to be flexible with "takers" and give them credit for putting themselves out there.
I think I'm a lot better now than when I was younger at adapting to a wide range of conversational styles, mostly just from paying more attention to that dynamic.
Do you feel like your conversational toolbox has evolved over time? :)
That's still a bit of a struggle to push myself to "speak out of turn" and ensure my voice is included in a discussion.
I'm not a great texter but this resonated with me and I'd never really thought about it. It's annoying when I don't feel like texting and I just get bombarded with questions demanding a response. On the other hand I can sympathize if they want to chat and I just don't.
I feel like I've been on both sides of all the examples in this piece depending on what kind of mood I'm in
Socializing is really hard.
As cliche as it is, find things in others that genuinely interest you. And don't expect it be a fruitful experience. There are so many reasons the socializing ritual can end up being unfulfilling.
Regarding your interpretation, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a huge difference between influencing someone to do what you want and simply being careful with what you say in order to avoid triggering negative responses/feelings in your peers.
I don't think the latter falls into being controlling/manipulative in any way, on the contrary, I think it is the base of good social etiquette, and I prefer to be surrounded by people who behave like that than the opposite.
I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person. I was only referring to your fixation on their reactions and feelings.
You literally said:
> your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you
Although the tone you hear in your head may sound stoic, I don't think that stance is neutral at all. You didn't say "I think your sentences..." or "Looks like your sentences..."; you made a subjective affirmation based on two sentences I said about people's feelings in conversations, on a thread about people's feelings in conversations, on a post about people's feelings in conversations.
If my two sentences in this context really mean that I am fixated, then everyone in HN is fixated on whatever they write, which is ridiculous.
I'm starting to think you are just trying to troll me.
I don't really understand the thesis outlined in the article. "Givers" and "takers" are defined like this, but it actually sounds like the two types of conversationalists are "actives" and "passives", where actives seek to move the conversation forward and passives let others move it forward. A giver-and-taker conversation where both participants are alternatingly active can work. The giver asks a question and the taker answers it but then adds something of their own that doesn't let the conversation grind to a halt.
Example:
A: Hey, have you heard about X? (giver, active)
B: Oh, I hate X. I think Y. (taker, active)
A: Woah, hang on. I'm not so sure about Y. (taker, active)
B: Oh, yeah? Do you think Z? (giver, active)
In my experience, the absolute worst conversations I've had were those where I felt I was the only one putting in any effort, trying to come up with topic after topic only to have them peter out in under a minute, followed by silence.
I also don't know that people are necessarily fixed in their roles, be as giver, taker, passive, or active. In fact, if I'd have to guess, an engaging conversation has the participants constantly switch roles with the flow, depending on how much they have to say on a given topic.
So I think a corollary from all this is that a conversation breaks down when an active participant switches to passive expecting the other to become active, when in fact the other person just wants to be passive, or when two passive people try to have a conversation, in which case nothing happens at all.
The classic advice is basically a caution against being a boring monologuer. And it has its merit. But this is an extra "level 2 conversationalist" lesson. It's the old: "OK remember those rules you learned in level 1? Here's when you can break them".
Th affordance analogy is that you want to give yourself and your conversation partner an abundance of options and opportunities for good conversation. Asking questions often is a way of doing that, but it's not the only way, and not all questions are equally helpful.
The flip side: slides designed by committee oftem tend to remove all the doorknobs. Every bold claim seems to gets softened, every interesting aside gets cut for time, etc., until you're left with something that nobody can disagree with but nobody finds very interesting either.
Good conversations have lots of doorknobs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35874183 - May 2023 (20 comments)
Good conversations have lots of doorknobs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32542260 - Aug 2022 (149 comments)
I used to teach a course on Gibson... so I'd like to clarify what he meant by affordances, which is a bit more powerful of an idea than presented in the article
His insight was that how you perceive something is not objective, but subjective. Or as he would say, the subjective turns out to be objective reality. So affordances reflects the fact that how you relate to something is in terms of what it affords you. A good example: An excellent downhill skier sees a near vertical drop as easy-peasy and not dangerous. The same skier learning to snowboard pulls up at this veritable cliff and says, holy shit, that's steep! Same physical world changes depending on how you relate to it on the present circumstances
JJ Gibson used such ideas to overthrow the object reality idea of perception, suggesting that perception is inherently a being-in-the-world phenomenon, not an objective knowing of the world (that exists, but is secondary and stripped of subjective experience).
I very often interrupt people when eagerly fitting into a conversation. That happens almost automatically and sometimes I apologize and say, sorry i was interrupting what you are saying... Often they don't continue where they got interrupted but don't seem annoyed.
Maybe it has to do with those emerging doorknobs i noticed and couldn't resist in grabbing.
perfmode•1mo ago
daveguy•1mo ago
Alternatives: "can we talk later, I'm really busy with ___."
Or in a work setting, "I'm in the middle of something, do you mind sending an email?"
Social settings, excuse yourself to the bathroom, they'll move on.
If you don't like the conversation, "do you mind if we talk about something else?".
There are tons of ways to wrap up or avoid conversation. The more honest you are the better. And take note of how others gracefully end conversations with you and use those phrases too.
nuancebydefault•1mo ago
In my perception ending a conversation is much easier than keeping it alive. People will pick up easily that you are not interested, even in the non verbal part of communication, no?