

How to do better in loud, crazy group conversations - KevinPD
http://www.succeedsocially.com/groupconversations
I saw an article on being likable made the front page recently.<p>I'd be interested to see what Hacker News thinks of this site.  It's the best one I know about the general topic of socializing.
======
jlees
I just find as a woman with a fairly low voice (not one of those raucous ear-
splitting types) the best way to succeed at these sorts of conversations is
not to get involved in them in the first place.

~~~
Celcius
I'm sorry but I don't understand the rationale behind that statement and I
wouldn't voice my oppinion if it wasn't you've been upmodded so much. So I'm
curious, if you do not partake how can you possibly succeed?

While I do understand why you'd be reluctant to partake in them, it's not like
they hold no value whatsoever or there being an inherent loss in partaking.

Although I do prefer civilized discussions.

~~~
jlees
You're implying that a noisy conversation is the only option and that I might
be missing out? That there is no loss to sitting in a room full of people
shouting at cross purposes and not being able to make myself heard without
major effort? Of course there's an inherent loss: frustration, vocal strain,
not having the situation go the way I want, you name it.

But what I more meant was that I construct situations where these cross-
purposes conversations aren't present. If I've got six people to discuss a
project with, I don't sit in a room and get them all to shout over me. There
are other ways to have that discussion.

I probably should have mentioned in my original reply that I'm from the UK,
which helps.

~~~
Celcius
I wasn't at all implying it's the only option but rather that it's an option.
I don't think you can entirely avoid discussions in that format especially if
you are discussing non-professional topics like politics, how you should raise
children or other highly opinionated things.

You always get to choose the people you are having a discussion with and some
people have a hard time taking someone disagreeing with them. Even if the
discussion might feel unpleasant in the heat of the moment I find that days or
weeks after the fact, I can still have the conversation in my head and feel
I've gained some insight into other peoples minds and maybe even agree with
them.

So all I was implying was that they aren't entirely pointless, however
frustrating they may be. I can see your point of wanting to avoid the
frustration, even if I personally have quite a thick skin and don't mind it
all that much.

I could mention that I'm from Sweden, but I doubt that helps at all. :) I do
like to stress that I don't try start those types of discussions and I do
think people who start shouting are silly, but I do argue against someone
however loud their voices are. :)

EDIT: I could probably also say that I tend to stay in heated group arguments
mainly because of the audience rather than whoever might be disagreeing with
me. As people who tend too shout don't tend to change their mind but letting
them have the only word might make the audience think that they are right.

~~~
jlees
I totally agree with your final point. If there's an audience things change
completely. :-D

------
KevinPD
I saw an article about being likable is on the front page.

I'd be interested in seeing what Hacker News thinks of this site. It's the
best one I know about the general topic of socializing.

No hard feelings if this is deemed off-topic, I never would have even
submitted this without the other article appearing.

~~~
dkarl
I like this topic because it's a stretch for geeks. Most of the challenges a
computer geek thinks about every day can be solved by application of existing,
understood principles. Mistakes are almost always logical errors in
application.

Socializing is where geeks get into the _other_ kinds of hard thought. Having
to work hard to get data. Having a bunch of apparently valid ideas that yield
contradictory results. Arriving at valid, logically sufficient ideas, but
discovering that they aren't suitable for application in practice. Living,
over extended time intervals, with observations and techniques that you
empirically know to be valid, but which you can't find satisfying explanations
for.

Plus it's universal. We could have similar discussions about painting, music,
or gardening, but only a small minority of HN readers could contribute to each
of those topics.

(P.S. Difficult engineering problems are discussed here often, but I think
people mostly tackle them vicariously. In the real world, solving a hard
engineering problem is rarely the most efficient way to deal with it. It's
kind of a last resort.)

------
bdr
An alternative form for the last section ("The other side: Scoring points by
controlling the madness") is "Derek, what were you going to say?" This would
be appropriate when Derek indicated a desire to speak but was interrupted by
someone with a bigger ego.

When I find myself in this kind of conversation, though, I'll almost always go
for "Start a side conversation if you can". See if the person next to you
seems sympathetic to the idea and then start the conversation wherever you
want.

~~~
wallflower
> Start a side conversation if you can

Divide and conquer is a very powerful group dynamic technique. For example,
group of 5. Get one person talking to you (that's 2). Draw another one in
(that's 3 - you control the group).

Divide and conquer can be used in darker ways. The Delphi Technique. I have
recollections of this being used without my knowledge at the time. It is
amazingly effective.

"Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group
opinion against the other."

<http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM>

------
wallflower
I was going to create a poll on Myers-Briggs personality types but found that
there already is a poll started by epi0Bauqu. Please consider voting to
increase the HN sample size (if you didn't already).

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=204240>

~~~
dave_au
I went there to post a link to

<http://skepdic.com/myersb.html>

but Alex3917 has beaten me to it almost a year ago.

------
enneff
If you don't like these kinds of conversation, know that it is within your
power to subvert the tone of the conversation, and to bring it to a place
where you are comfortable. If you can quickly interject with an objection as
to the terms of the debate, you'll be surprised how quickly people will adjust
their attitudes and become more 'civil'. Requesting that people focus on a
particular point of interest (for the group, not merely yourself) is one way
of directing people's attention and serialising the flow of conversation.

You need to be strong about it, though. If you have trouble asserting yourself
then you need to work on that part first.

------
rms
The best conversation I ever had of this type converged to people going around
in a circle making toasts.

~~~
sketerpot
Nice! I've always wanted a conversation to spontaneously become less like
ethernet and more like token ring.

------
dmaclay
Sing the first few words of your opening sentence. It really grabs attention,
and usually shuts everyone up in confusion. While it is not overtly offensive,
you will piss-off the usual alphas by grabbing focus from them, so expect some
backlash.

------
banned_man
The trick to success in those conversations is to realize that, as long as
you're not offensive, no one gives a fuck about the verbal content, most of
which is excruciatingly boring. Intellectually, it's like a 6-year-old's
soccer game where no one will remember the score tomorrow. Those are the
conversations in which 90%+ of how you're perceived is based on body language,
tone of voice, etc. If you think for too long about what you're going to say,
or get really into what you're talking about and ignore others' lack of
interest, or get into debate mode, you'll lose.

~~~
dkarl
As in a six-year-old's soccer game, there is some structure to the
conversation. There are two sides, and both teams try to kick the ball as hard
as they can in the right general direction. Trying to introduce a third
opinion to the fray is like a confused child dribbling the ball out of bounds;
the ball will be taken away from him and put back into play. The only way for
a third possibility to achieve consideration is for the original game to end
in defeat for one side, at which point a third opinion may be able to call
"next" before the crowd's attention wanders.

 _If you... get into debate mode, you'll lose_

Not to sound like a dick, because I'm not any good at this myself, but a
skillful debater always takes the audience into account, whether the audience
is the Supreme Court or a crowd of rowdy partygoers.

~~~
enneff
I respectfully disagree with your comments re: third opinions.

Often the best way to 'win' an argument in a group context is to derail the
current thread of conversation (in which both sides have their arguments
clearly in mind) and change the term of the debate in a way that suit you.
This will have the effect of throwing off would-be adversaries (by the time
they have their shit together to counter your new argument, the conversation
is long gone) and gaining followers of your new idea.

