
"Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules." - cwan
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/conversation/
======
MartinCron
Anyone who is really interested in this concept should pick up "Unwritten
Rules of Social Relationships" by Dr. Temple Grandin and Sean Barron.

Dr. Grandin is herself autistic, and asserts that people along the autism-
Asperger's spectrum need to learn the rules explicitly, like actors learning
their lines in a play.

~~~
lotharbot
Learning the rules is the easy part. The hard part is training yourself to do
them consistently. It takes some mental energy and effort.

For example, I've learned that eye contact is important, and have trained
myself to do it subconsciously, but when I'm tired or have just given blood, I
stop doing it.

~~~
MartinCron
Absolutely. Even though she has worked hard to study and understand the rules,
Dr. Grandin has explicitly given up on the idea of ever being in a romantic
relationship, as it's just too much work for her.

------
ambulatorybird
Other kinds of conversational rules, perhaps of more interest to linguists,
programmers, philosophers, etc.:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maxim>

~~~
lionhearted
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature>

Hey, that's really, really fantastic and useful. I can't believe I've never
seen it before.

Are you in linguistics? Care to recommend some more reading, articles, essays?

~~~
ambulatorybird
I took some philosophy classes in college, where I learned about the concept.
If you want to read more, the best place to start would be the references and
external links provided in the Wikipedia articles. Also try googling for
papers by Grice.

~~~
lionhearted
I'm skimming and bookmarking some Grice right now. Exciting stuff. Thank you
:)

~~~
saint-loup
Just to add few links basically in the same field:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle#Speech_acts>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_theory>

------
johnfn
I realized a few months ago that I was talking too much in conversations, and
not listening nearly enough. So for the last few months, I've decided to talk
a lot less, and spend a lot more time just listening to people. In one on one
conversation, I mostly just ask the other guy about the things he's talking
about, to lead him into deeper (perhaps more interesting) areas.

This is a great way to talk about interesting things.

~~~
jholman
I have a similar project of self-improvement going on, but I find the problem
much subtler than what you describe.

First off, yeah, with the people I most value, I talk too much and don't
listen enough. Mea culpa, must improve.

On the other hand, perhaps I just need to level up my skill at asking guiding
questions, and perhaps I just need to widen my interests, but I frequently
have trouble being interested in what people want to talk about. In
particular, I often find people want to tell stories about a particular
experience they have, for the purpose of complaining about other people,
refusing to generalize the experience, and refusing empathize with the person
they're complaining about. That's boring!

Perhaps relatedly, I've recently been thinking that maybe I should put a
little more work into consciously deciding if a conversant is interesting to
me, and then choosing to pursue a boorish strategy or a collaborative strategy
appropriately (perhaps erring on the side of collaborative). I've definitely
had some totally boring people recently exclaim how fun I am to talk to and
how much they'd like to hang out more in the future. Oops. It's probably
imprudent, though, to attempt this strategy in groups with more than one other
person present.

~~~
johnfn
Yeah; I like to assume that the fault always rests on me. Perhaps it's not
always true, but I think that's the fastest way to improve. As for what you
specifically mention, I would try to find a deeper cause of complaints. I ask
stuff like "does this happen often?" or "do you find that other people are
like these people? Why?"

I think that there are always ways to (gradually!) steer a conversation to
what you both find mutually interesting. It is an art, though.

------
xenophanes
> Would the alien ever learn to distinguish good dancers from poor dancers?

He could hack the problem like this: instead of figuring out which type of
dancing is impressive directly, just watch reactions. People react to what
they think is good dancing, so by watching people he can learn what's
considered good dancing.

~~~
zck
But people also react to what is _bad_ dancing; you'd have to know what
reactions are favorable, and what reactions indicate displeasure. This would
be hard for aliens, who wouldn't know what facial expressions mean.

~~~
username3
Perhaps a reality TV show about dancing with stars that think they can dance
would be better.

------
maukdaddy
I wish that both CS and MBA programs taught students to listen more. One of
the few similarities I find between programmers/engineers and MBAs is the need
to completely dominate a conversation. A few seminars on active listening
would help everyone :)

~~~
ora600
You may have sampling bias - you tend to hear more the ones that completely
dominate conversations. This doesn't immediately mean they are really the
majority.

Personally, I wish my CS program taught me to speak more at a conversation
setting (as opposed to "raise your hand to speak" classroom). I spent the
first 3 years of my career unable to get a word in at meetings.

~~~
Psyonic
No offense, but that doesn't really seem like the job of your CS program. No
doubt a communications course would have helped, though engineers tend to look
down on that major.

~~~
ora600
Of course it isn't! I was just riffing off the idea in the parent comment.

------
hunterjrj
If you haven't already read How to Win Friends and Influence People, you
definitely should.

~~~
ja27
One of my bosses made a difficult coworker take a Dale Carnegie class.
Afterward he said that it "changed his life." I thought it made him even
creepier with the constant fake smile, eye contact and repetition of people's
first name in conversation.

~~~
rix0r
I agree. To me it sounds rather aggressive if people keep repeating my name
while they already have my attention.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I meet up to about 20 children a day (sometimes a lot more, often a lot of
adults too, but more often more children) that I don't know and need to
communicate with. The kids are generally 4-10 years old but, as I said, it can
be all ages.

I find that the children respond far better if I use their names when talking
with them - but this is short snippets of talk (maybe 30s) with longer
(20+min) gaps between. I always introduce my self by given-name and am
surprised by how many of them remember me months later.

Partly I use their names as an attempt to remember them, partly to ease any
discomfort or reluctance they have communicating with me and partly because I
find it awkward starting a conversation or getting someone's attention without
using their name.

------
zoba
I would agree that there are few people with even minimal conversational
skills. It is fantastic though when you run in to someone who really knows how
to have a good conversation! I've only run in to one or two of these
conversation super stars in my lifetime though.

I'd be really interested in a book that outlines the rules for a
relationship... It would be nice to have something authoritative to point to
when disagreements crop up.

~~~
c00kie
An authoritative source would need to cover all possible contexts (not to
mention the problem of actually being right), which would make it infinite in
length....

------
culebron
This article seems too simplistic and an immature viewpoint to me.

1\. People do note if you are interested or not. Speaking all the time mostly
equals to being self-centered. Making questions all the time can certainly
please a self-centered person, but not those who note subtleties: getting a
disinterested or a stock question is the same repelling as domineering.

2\. People are adaptive and notice patterns. A good way to be boring is to do
the same pattern in conversations. Try to seduct a girl by just making
questions to her. (Where do you live; Are you stydiyng or working; etc.) That
doesn't work.

3\. Those who follow such too simple rule can easily be abused: a lot of
people complain to others and search for those who'd just listen. They can
never get enough, and what's worse they don't value you.

You have to be able to tell some words of support, but also, to not become a
moral drainage to someone, you need to LEAD. This is a complicated thing, so I
don't extend it here.

5\. Making questions takes skill. Questions may be stupid, irritating,
insulting or nerdy and boring. There's no boolean choice, to speak or to make
questions, as it is presented in the article.

6\. A good story teller is better than a good question maker. This also takes
skill and the sense of what's a good place to which story.

For talks as an entertainment, which is my primary concern here, the
difficulty is in INVOLVING THE interlocutor's PERSONALITY. Consider 2
questions one might ask:

(a) Do you think Paris Hilton's recent behavior is acceptable? (b) What would
you do if you were Paris Hilton? (her father, brother, etc)

The second one lets the inerlocutor imagine oneself in an interesting
situation and involves the personality. This thing is rare, I do value it
high; too many talks happen in the upper atmosphere without involving you, and
too many people don't get it and don't try to involve others, thinking that
just smiling or being joyful, or flattery is the key. Though, this also takes
skill, and I suppose that if you try too hard, people can get bored even of
being _tried_ to involve: we all are good at noticing patterns.

------
byw
For me, a big part of it isn't so much learning the rules, but unlearning the
non-rules. In hindsight, a lot of the rules really aren't that complex, and
can be easily picked up through observation.

The problem is that some people have overly sensitive radars, so we tend to
pick up the noise along with the signal. On top of that we have a questioning
nature, and we don't like to follow a rule based on its face value, we end up
lingering in doubts on the universality of the rule, or its moral
justifications. Other times we hold a rule in contempt, seeing it as cliche.
All these get in the way when a social exchange demands you to apply the rules
swiftly without thinking.

------
Quarrelsome
I don't particularly agree with his definition of good dancing. Sounds to me
like his pinnacle of dance is just "fitting in". Good dancing IMO is about
enjoying yourself, effectively translating the sound into movement and/or
letting yourself go.

------
reader5000
Keyword here is active listening:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening>

~~~
mike_h
Key concept is that if people want to submit themselves to a one-way stream of
communication, they have TV and the internet for that. If a conversation isn't
two-way, you're alienating someone.

~~~
Goosey
A proper conversation should be an exchange of gifts. Your words are a gift to
them, and theirs to you. Never give yourself a gift.

------
lvecsey
It's interesting to consider that entire societies have been built around
these concepts. Usually when I see the Implicature thing that has been
mentioned here, I often question whether the exact opposite (or something else
all together) should be considered first; from there, you can think about
whether everyone might be right.

Similarly, with those maxims about communication it's as if everyone is
striving for a genuine meaning. However, if you take things to their limit
there is nihilism everywhere.

The aliens, asper people, and 3/4's of everyone could just be unaware but also
just rejecting the conventional notions of conversation.

------
preavy
"I HAVE observed few obvious subjects to have been so seldom, or, at least, so
slightly handled as this; and, indeed, I know few so difficult to be treated
as it ought, nor yet upon which there seemeth so much to be said." - Jonathan
Swift, Hints Towards an Essay on Conversation.

<http://www.bartleby.com/27/8.html>

------
jpr
Uh-oh, if 3/4 of people can't conversate, couldn't it just be that people
aren't meant to do that?

~~~
DLWormwood
I know I’m going against the grain here, but I’ve always been suspicious of
people who claim that humans are a “social animal.” Thing is, the concept is a
continuum, yet most people who say it mean it in a context like ants, bees and
bonobo apes, when I happen to believe that the social behavior of lions and
wolves is more apt. (Humans are best off in small family clusters, with
significant periods of time in their life alone or paired off.) Humans have
engaged in antisocial and asocial activities (monasteries, homesteads, and
hermitage) for all of recorded history, and I resent those today who seem to
delight in trying to make other gregarious like themselves.

~~~
philwelch
Monasteries and homesteads have never attracted a significant proportion of
the population, and they're not all that solitary, either.

Humans are a social animal, and if you're not convinced of that, study the
psychological effects of feral children and solitary confinement.

~~~
DLWormwood
Read what I wrote more closely. I didn’t say “no contacts,” I said “few.”
Being social doesn’t imply packing our “monkeyspheres” to the 100 person
maximum that the social butterflies seem to want to subject everybody to.

