I find that a lot of people aren't used to changing their mind. For these people, conversation is to convince others rather than engage in exchanging and synthesis of ideas. To take this further, in general people are very attached to their own ideas, and if presented with viewpoints contrary to them, will fight as though backed into a corner. I think this comes from attaching their ego to their opinion, so if they're wrong, then they're "worse" of a person, so they really don't want to be wrong. Perhaps it's also a form of sunk cost fallacy.
Part of "gauging the conversation" is to understand if your conversation partners are in such a mode - and if so, then to adjust appropriately.
> I think this comes from attaching their ego to their opinion, so if they're wrong, then they're "worse" of a person, so they really don't want to be wrong. Perhaps it's also a form of sunk cost fallacy.
Mmm. I've seen similar things but I interpret it differently. People literally can't think that quickly - it takes a few days (!) ideally involving a some good sleep to really synthesize new ideas.
That time required to think implies that even if someone is convincing it still makes sense to plow ahead with disagreeing with them in the here and now.
1) It is possible that their certainty is convincing but not their argument. In my early days on HN that happened to me a few times - I got convinced in conversation because someone seemed confident despite having clearly understood what I'd said. Later I swung back to my initial opinion later after reviewing the arguments carefully and deciding that the compelling part was flawed.
2) Even if the argument is compelling, it still makes some sense to just throw out all the arguments you have, shotgun style, to find out what the appropriate counters to them are in the future.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure people do change their minds, it just happens a bit slower than people expect so nobody notices it happening. Of course, there is a particular style needed to achieve that - if they get threatened or attacked while changing their mind they will not do it.
I agree with this. I don’t think I’ve ever changed my mind on an opinion (although I have on facts I was wrong about) based on a single conversation. In fact I usually don’t even notice my opinion changed until next time I think about the topic and realize I feel differently than before.
I used to be more politically radical but in recent years I have found myself subconsciously mellowing out in favor of reformism. It literally happens without me even knowing it. The same has happened also with regards to social issues, which I used to dismiss as divisive and not important, but now realize that from the perspective of people affected it is of the utmost importance, which probably stems from a very gradual process of becoming more well socialized.
I think what you’re describing is just a natural part of growing up. It’s well documented that folks tend to be more radical in their political leanings when they’re younger.
For synthesizing new ideas maybe it takes that long. But if you hold any serious views that you expect to have challenged by others (relating to politics or otherwise), you should have clear rules for why you believe those things and exactly what evidence it would take to cause you to change your mind. Then, you can change your beliefs the exact moment that new information is provided to you.
I try to start all of my conversations about politics or sensitive issues with the question "What would you have to be shown, or what evidence would it take for you to change your position on X?". If the person doesn't have a good answer to that, then they are usually either an ideologue or have not actually seriously thought about the issue in any depth, and it's probably going to be fruitless to try and have a conversation about that subject.
I abide by this rule and can change my views at the drop of a hat when presented with new evidence.
The question makes more sense if you additionally pose an alternative (i.e. change my position to Y). Given strictly like this, all I can really say is that I would change my position if you demonstrated to me that it was in my own or others' self-interest to behave differently?
Since we are talking about assessments and decisions about a course of action and not values, the question falls apart. I think it was intended to be a trick question calling you out as a hypocrite but from what I have read of your comments on HN your answer would run more like:
A: Examples of a better way to phrase the question.
A: That for some category or type of person the question won't make sense, in which case it's better to ask a different question--or perhaps not to engage in conversation.
You might start by asking for what evidence--experience, observations, or stories--have framed their approach before asking for them to speculate about new evidence that would cause them to change their decision.
I have used your approach and found it effective in dealing with managers: is there any new data or information we could gather that would affect your decision? If the answer is "no" then you know that you are dealing with a political situation (small "p" as in organizational politics) not a problem solving one.
Those are fair suggestions. I'm not typically inclined to "do the work for them" so-to-speak, by asking them what experiences & observations have framed their approach, because that's basically priming the person to have a particular response to the second question which might not be in alignment with their actual beliefs.
A lot of the time people don't have a good response to the second question because they have never actually even considered the possibility that they could ever hold the opposing view on something, or what holding that view would entail.
If there is a value implicit seeing to gather disconfirming evidence by asking the decision maker what would change their mind, it seems to me to be a commitment to the scientific method of allowing new data to overturn existing models and hypotheses.
My apologies if I imputed motives in your question that were not there.
I am curious: what would you do if you were facing a high stakes situation where another person's decision was going to have a material impact on your life? How would you go about trying to change their decision?
Sure, "commitment to the scientific method" is also a "value", if we want to be abstract like that.
Regarding your question: Depends on how much impact on my life it would have, and what exactly the decision is. I have no prepared strategies to change people's minds apart from presenting reasonable arguments and maybe slightly bullshitting my way through it at times. There was never a need for more than that.
In the extreme the response would be lies and even violence, if nothing else works, I suppose. Again, it depends on what the situation and "material impact" on my life is.
I really don't think this is how it "should" work. If you took time to actually research something and build nowledge in that area, a single sentence or verbal paragraph should not change your opinion. You should take time to evaluate and reconcile whenever was new. And spend time to check whether what was said was actually true. A single thing someone with no special authority on the mayter said should not make you flip.
Debates are more about speed and quick recollection then anything else.
Also, to your last paragraph, it does not show the other people are ideologues. It just show they see you want to win verbal game rather then engage in serious debate into the topic. People are not interested in it, because why would they?
> Also, to your last paragraph, it does not show the other people are ideologues. It just show they see you want to win verbal game rather then engage in serious debate into the topic. People are not interested in it, because why would they?
In fairness, there are more interpretations beyond wanting to win.
Trying to make the point general: that filter ("do you have an evidence standard?") does identify some people who will change their minds, but will rule out others who are also willing to change their minds.
Probably quite a lot of someones if my theory is correct. People can be quite flexible towards someone who is respectful and wants to help them get better outcomes. I've had a instances where I turn out to have convinced someone 24 hours after the fact - and vice-versa.
I don’t waste my time trying to convince anyone of anything unless it directly affects me.
That means the only person I have to convince of anything in my personal life right now is my wife and even that it’s related to shared goals. For instance she’s religious - I’m not. What’s the purpose of trying to convince her of anything.
If relatives have a different opinion when I eat dinner with them, I just nod and change the subject quickly to something not related to for instance religion and politics.
At work, I have to do some convincing. But even then, “I stay in my lane”. If it is a larger project and I’m only responsible for one slice, I will give my opinion on the rest. But they can take it or leave it.
There are topics on which I hold opposing positions logically and emotionally. There are topics on which I can hold different positions depending on my mood.
Humans are not robots, we do not compute our worldview from set of learned facts or opinions - it is formed by lived experience.
Therefore, neither convincing your opponent is guaranteed to ultimately change their mind - they may easily change it back hour later. Nor is it pointless trying to convince someone who appears immovable in their position - your words may be the last drop that will make them change their mind or at least put a crack in their worldview next time they think about the topic.
Glad I'm not the only one who doesn't think so fast to be able to change an opinion within a conversation. It takes me literal hours of reflecting on past conversation to change. There is no way any non-trivially held opinion of mine could change within a single conversation. Questioned? Maybe. Changed? No.
I would say it is the overwhelming majority of people’s approach. They have a point of view and are emotionally committed to it. They have this commitment almost equally across opinions even if they only arrived at it by first gut reaction moments ago.
They also project this mode onto their conversation partners. For example, if you offer a counter point or drawback to a proposal, they assume you are strongly opposed to the proposal. Rather than discuss the drawback, they will launch into a stream of defenses of the proposal.
I haven’t found any reliable ways to steer people out of this. The most useful adjustment is to expect it and know that most people are just giving you depth on one intuitively appealing solution.
Simply put most people can’t think straight and therefore can’t converse logically either.
My typical method of helping with this is to find common ground. Find something you both agree on, even if it’s only tangentially related, and then pose an argument and phrase it as such.
For example, when discussing if the Earth is flat or round, you might both find agreement in that nobody has ever fallen off the edge of the Earth. Then you might try to pose an argument as to why - which is more likely, that nobody has ever traveled far enough to fall off, or that the earth is actually a continuous plane?
I find assigning probabilities to topics often helps.
But sometimes you can’t, and that’s when you agree to disagree and politely exit the discourse.
The first part of this sounds very closely related to something called Rogerian argument [1] which aims to find new opportunities for consensus by building on views already held in common.
The bit about assigning probabilities is interesting, precisely because I can think of very few contexts in which it would be of use to me. People seem to have little tolerance for shades of uncertainty when expressing views, whereas privately we think in probabilities all the time. It's as though we play a kind of poker where our need to conserve our 'stack' of reputational authority makes us relegate the actual ideas in contention to mere 'hands' to be represented, bluffed, and trivially discarded when a more amenable certainty presents itself.
> For example, when discussing if the Earth is flat or round, you might both find agreement in that nobody has ever fallen off the edge of the Earth.
So I'm not trying to argue that the earth is flat, but how do you respond if they ask for proof that nobody has fallen off the edge of the earth?
It's not like you can point to some record of all history and show that the event doesn't exist within it. You might try to explain that there is no edge to fall off of, but if you can convince them of that, then the conversation never needed to happen in the first place.
> how do you respond if they ask for proof that nobody has fallen off the edge of the earth?
The same way you should respond to all questions. Truthfully. You have no proof, and you don't care to waste your time looking for it. If that is a showstopper for the conversation, it was never worth having in the first place. Simple as that.
I think that's practically what will happen a lot of the time, but it's not very satisfying. It seems to amount to "this person won't be convinced by my unconvincing argument, so the conversation wasnt worth having". (Unconvincing in that you're basically asking them to take it on faith rather than demonstrating it rigorously).
>you might both find agreement in that nobody has ever fallen off the edge of the Earth.
You've revealed yourself as not having actually found common ground with flat earthers. Evvvvverybody knows that it's not about travel distance. You can't fall off the edge of the earth because of the ice walls. It's not like it just ends. That'd be silly. The oceans would drain out into flat space.
I think that interpersonal relatedness or 'connection' relates to the degree to which people are willing to have their minds changed, or perhaps more accurately, admit to having their mind changed. Being open to admitting a change of mind requires a certain amount of vulnerability that can be difficult or impossible, depending on how well you know the other person.
Anecdotally, I've noticed that in group interactions where time is invested up front in 'ice breakers' (the non-cringey kind) or other exercises where the objective is not about the topic at hand but rather to better get to know the group participants, this can help build interpersonal relations. Seeing others as more 3-dimensional helps with social bonding and thus makes us more open to being more vulnerable.
This mode is essentially universal. Our brain is a world modelling and outcome prediction machine. It being wrong would be an existential threat in the environment it evolved to function. This is why being fundamentally wrong is extremely uncomfortable for us.
The difference is in the level of abstraction an individual takes their stand at and becomes uncomfortable when challenged. Which, I think, depends on how grounded their beliefs, knowledge or opinions are - how many layers and columns of "I'm still right" they can fall back to.
You ask people “how did you arrive at this conclusion”. That’s a good invitation to extract a walkthrough of how that conclusion was arrived at, what observations, data, evidence, references, whatever informed their conclusion about whatever subject.
Even worse than this, sometimes I find myself changing my mind internally but feeling compelled to defend my initial opinion, as if being convinced is having lost. That’s definitely detrimental to a conversation.
Yes. This can happen when the person you're talking to is in the right but is being arrogant/obnoxious/smug about it. Publicly agreeing would be rewarding rudeness. I don't think that's even such a bad thing; they might only be right once, but they'll probably be rude forever, so why ever give them the satisfaction?
Effective arguing doesn't have to look like "arguing". You have to leave people an off-ramp so they can change their minds without feeling like they are losing a status contest.
Most people are emotional, not rational. Even people who are supposed to be rational are rarely unemotional about their beliefs.
It's why facts and evidence are so unpersuasive. If you don't make them emotionally and personally relatable most of the population won't understand what you're trying to say.
Which is why the rule is "People won't remember what you said, but they'll remember how you made them feel."
Isn’t it hypocritical to criticize people, though, for having their egos attached to their opinions? I mean, who hasn’t? It’s likely that we only think better of ourselves when we are disagreeing with others on topics that do not matter to us deeply (and which does to them—so really, who’s being the bad person here?), but everyone has something that they deeply believe in and upon which they anchor their identity. Otherwise, why would we bother arguing with others if we didn’t believe that our beliefs are the correct guiding principles for our day-to-day actions that define our identities?
I think there is a worthwhile distinction between the values you hold, and specific ways of implementing those values. When disagreeing with another person you're far more likely to differ on the exact road you want to take, but not actually the destination - presumably because a lot of individual assumptions play into the implementation you deem ideal.
To give an example, I do attach my ego to a lot of my values. But at the same time I know that I am fallible, and more likely to be wrong than right on any given topic, even if I do my best to research it. So if I really hold true to my values, I can't stomp my feet and say "But we have to do it this way!" if someone else can reasonably argue for a different (and potentially better) road to take.
Most points of contention are complex and there isn't a water tight argument one way or the other. Most people aren't very convincing in the best of circumstances.
Thus, most people don't change their mind because they don't get presented a sufficiently good explanation that would move them from one not-water-tight position to another not water-tight-position.
Though he primarily talked about religion and politics (it's an old essay), I see people attaching other concepts to their identity, and then verbally fighting to the death if you point out the slightest flaw in any of these concepts.
I'm curious about why you would want (or, expect) an institution to resolve a cultural or interpersonal phenomenon. Maybe I've misunderstood your meaning or intent. It strikes me that this is a behavior, and if it's common, the best way to address it is by changing the norm through positive examples and gentle feedback.
Off the cuff, looking to an institution to shape some behaviors has not generally gone well for humanity. I'm sure that we can think of counter-examples, but this seems to be contrary to what makes Western culture successful.
It must come from outside pressure. Internal dynamics of institutions work in the retrograde direction: Individuals most easily rise to power by flattering prevailing opinions.
Seems there is lots of discussion already about "Don't interrupt"
I will add another POV:
You kind of have to interrupt in group conversations or you will never talk at all. That's what regularly happens to me at least, I need to learn to speak up a bit more...
This is one of those things where there is huge cultural variation, but everyone subconsciously assumes their culture's point on the continuum is the "correct" one and gives advice based on that.
Some cultures lean towards people being expected to take the stage in a conversation and interruption is a valid and accepted way of communicating "I have something of value now". Other lean towards people being expected to give the stage and silence is a valid and accepted way of communicating "Do you have something of value now?"
Either style is fine, but you gotta read the room and adjust your style to fit the other people in your conversation.
Speaking of huge cultural variation... an experience I had working with Russian contractors: they didn't realize that we disagreed with their plan because we hadn't yelled at them. No idea whether that's a general Russian cultural principle or not, but we did get better at disagreeing, when necessary, after that.
I suspect that a large part of the problem was that Canadians tend to disagree rather obliquely.
Having worked with a lot of Russians/former Sovjets, I can see this happening.
They're often serious in most endeavours ("work hard play hard", "smiling is for leisure time" etc), and this extends to disagreements IME.
There was one incident where two (white collar adults) had a fist fight over a seemingly minor issue. I was mortified (Swede), but they were fine? As in the fight settled it, and they were now pals again.
I admire their style. Explicit in feeling, resolve conflict right away, hold no grudges. Reminds me of the genuine interaction among children or chimpanzee politics [1], where upon resolving conflicts, everyone are friends again (chimpanzees are more nuanced but still).
This is a very simple, but not obvious, statement. I think your comment clicked something for me. I always noticed the two types of conversations you pointed out, but for some reason I never made the connection to categorize it like this.
Many of my awkward conversations are strictly because this distinction wasn't respected. Thanks for teaching me something new.
This is absolutely true. When moving to the US, it took me years to transition from interruption-based conversations to patiently waiting for the stage to be free. Needless to say, I wasn't making a lot of friends.
The other cultural conversation difference is in empathizing with the speaker by sharing your own experience, which in the US is often interpreted as making the conversation about yourself and triggers a negative reaction, whereas in other cultures people take turns in sharing related experiences to move the conversation along.
This comment is itself an example of the above. Some people in the US can converse in this style, but most will feel like the spotlight was stolen from them and that the stage was not given back via a question, so they disengage by saying 'cool' or a polite "that's fascinating", and the overall sentiment they get from such interactions is negative.
If you're like me, you want to stop interrupting, remember what point you were going to make, wait for the person to finish speaking, then IF the topic is still relevant, bring up that point in the form of a question; if the point is no longer relevant because the topic has been changed, just drop it and move on with the conversation, otherwise you can bring it up but realize that you will indirectly assign importance to it by bringing the conversation back to that point. Focus less on what you can say in a conversation, and more on the content you heard.
If this were a verbal conversation, notice that even if I give the stage back at this point to the 'parent', I already 1) talked about myself, 2) changed topics by mentioning a related, but different topic and 3) failed to ask any questions about the actual content that was presented to me.
The conversation is pretty much dead/mildly frustrating for them. The fact that I started by expressing agreement is OK, but at this point will most likely feel superficial to the listener. If you don't ask a question to give the stage back, you will leave them confused, and if you do ask a question - what is it going to be about? Probably about your own story ("e.g. do you agree? Have you experienced that?") or if you circle back to their content it will highlight how badly you've derailed the conversation ("so anyway, which cultures in your experience expect you to take the stage?").
This style can work with some folks in the US, but I'd say it's best to be very aware of it if you decide to go down this path. Generally, listening and asking questions, until they ask you a question, is the more familiar conversation style.
These games sounds complex and exhausting. As a Brit in the US, maybe this explains a lot.
Having lived in the middle (Chicago), East coast (NYC) and West coast (SF Bay area), I'm curious if this explanation is generally consistent across them.
No, I don't think it is. My experience is that there are roughly four conversational style regions in the US: the south, east cost, west coast, and mid-west.
I don't care to be in rooms I am not welcomed in. Blurting things out when I have something to say is part of my character. If other people have so much of an issue with me having this characteristic, then they are perfectly free to ask me to leave.
Until then, I feel perfectly free to speak my mind, and I do not accept strangers socially policing me. Why should I? They're the ones who have an issue, not me.
Both styles are acceptable, but don't let others tell you what the room reads. You are an adult, and perfectly capable of choosing for yourself what is appropriate communication. Whether you're someone who is naturally withdrawn or not makes no difference, you should always be able to feel comfortable being yourself. If you can't, your number one goal should be to permanently remove yourself from whichever situations restricts you from that, whatever way you can while maintaining your integrity.
Don't let others scare you into thinking you'll never make it work, cause you absolutely will. Where there's a will there's a way, and I don't know a single person who moved out of home, for example, then regretted it but ended up homeless because they cut ties. I'm sure you can find me an example or two, but in the vast majority of cases, the people who are the worst off in society are those who relied on someone who was toxic for them, not those who cut ties and failed to adequately provide for themselves.
Your body is capable of more than you know, and will even naturally prioritise things for you in the way they should be. Modern society allows you to be an individual at the cost of the community we used to have. That sucks, but as a hacker, you should accept things as they are, and take advantage of what you can in the broken systems that surround us. Even in your own life. Things are what they are, and you can feel about them however you want to. The only way to make them different is to use what's in front of you.
Where are you from? The reason I am asking that is I have noticed this behavior is seen as common in America, but if you go to e.g Scandinavia you will be seen as extremely rude. The perceived rudeness will come from the other people thinking that you are «taking all the space» and not giving other people the opportunity to talk. It is more common to take turns while speaking and self regulating, instead of people talking over each other and interrupting. I hope for your sake that when you are traveling you try to adjust to the social norms there instead of forcing your more space-taking style onto other people.
I am from Norway. I know all about the importance of perservering in the face of social pressure precisely because of that. I know who I am, and I know what makes me happy. Being "proper" is not that. I know full well this trait of mine is off-putting to people when they initially meet me, but trying to be someone I'm not makes both of us even more uncomfortable.
After I broke bad during childhood due to emotional neglect, my mother reacted by buying me things and letting me mostly do what I wanted with my days in order to shut me up, and so I did. I raised myself on the internet and I know it inside out. At 15 we moved, and I decided I was going to try to be a "real" adult from now on.
That was when the REAL problems started. Hell truly is other people. Attempting to contort yourself into some strange dependencies you're somehow "supposed" to have on other people, and attachments you never formed is unnatural and painful, both for you and your victim. Though I did my best to grin and bear it, I was never happy. Though I easily accomplished anything I set out to do on the "proper" path, it brought me no joy.
Today, I am a 26 year old engineer working in a truly innovative, economically sound startup, where I am well-respected and feel fully competent. It bores me to tears, and any attempts to force me into "standups" and "OKR"s makes me want to stand up and kms.
Being "socially succesful" is no longer a goal of mine, because it's just straight up boring. People who restrain themselves from speaking their mind bore me, and people who attempt to restrain me from speaking mine infuriate me.
If that philosophy means fewer people want to interact with me, I consider that a great success.
Fair enough. It seems to me that you have thought a lot about this and you are living true to the values that you have set for yourself. I don't personally feel the same way but I respect your decision in being true to yourself and as long as you're not hurting anyone else in the process who am I to judge?
You've got maybe a more exhuberant way of saying it, but I've got a similar outlook anymore. I've always been awkward and no good at fitting in with the "popular" crowd. I take some getting used to and people who don't know me misunderstand my intentions. I stopped trying to fit the imaginary mold where if I just speak this way and talk about these things, people will like me. I try to be a good person, I work hard, help people out, and if the way I look at you and the way I talk are so off-putting that you don't want anything to do with me, then it's your loss.
I appreciate the "This is how I am, take it or leave it." attitude, and vaguely recall a Buddhist teaching relating to cultivating a self that can be consistent across different situations. I like it.
However, your version seems a little extreme. The article may seem to articulate the other extreme - like you should always contort yourself into the shape that others want, but I don't think the author was suggesting that. Seemed to me they were just pointing out that conversations are most fun when both/all parties take an interest in each other, and it's nice when someone takes a genuine interest in what you're talking about, so let's do that for each other.
Another Buddhist teaching is to learn how to free oneself from attachment and to be egoless.
The poster is clearly believes that there is something intrinsic and essential to their one personality that involves how they interrupt people, rather than realizing it is simply a choice they have made that has effects and consequences like any other choice.
They want and expect those consequences to be different than they are and they are anchored in that delusion.
Which is exactly why Buddhism is for losers. No one wants to be the Dalai Lama. If standing by helplessly as others dominate you is supposed to be the highest example of holiness, then it is quite simply rotten. It got closer than the Abrahamic religions because it teaches you to accept what you can't change, but it teaches this at the cost of giving up the will to change the things you want to change that DO bother you.
Of course the things I do are a choice. Everything is. I chose to restrain myself for a good 10-11 years and it was utterly miserable. Why would I desire relationships I do not need on the condition that I do what I do not want? Makes no sense.
I don't expect anything from anyone aside from treating me with the same respect I treat them. If I am not welcome somewhere, I have no problem leaving. Being myself alone is far preferable to being someone else with a bunch of people who will never be closer than acquaintances.
As I am sure you are already aware in moments of clarity, your fear of being evaluated and rejected by others is so severe that you’ve made the choice to engage in behaviors that ensue it will happen, thus at least giving yourself a feeling of agency and control over that process.
Perhaps you will come to terms with this in time to live some portion of your life with a different approach.
You might be stuck at a local maximum, and might find even more happiness by exploring other ways.
I'm not suggesting you should throw away what works for you, but if you only do the things that are already working, you might miss out on something you would have enjoyed.
You have completely misunderstood not only Buddhism but what Sartre meant when he said Hell is other people. Buddhism does not advocate for anything you are putting on it.
A Buddhist does not simply accept abuse and is not a passive actor. On the contrary, accomplished practitioners brim with vigor, courage and their own personality.
You've designed a life where you are comfortable but at the potential expense of anyone you encounter. That is not an accomplished life. That is a life of poisoned self-indulgence.
Ive never understppd people who interrupt sp can I ask - if you interrupt someone and they then interupt you and say "shut up and let me finish" is this offensive to you or do you consider it a normal event in the course of a convo?
I tend not to do this just to keep the peace, but It absolutely infuriates me when im interrupted and id love to be able to just re-interrupt people
Honestly, that first paragraph sounds like a self-justification for not improving one's social skills. By choosing to make it part of your identity, learning to improve would be self erasure.
What skills need improvement? I am 100% aware of when it is safe to interrupt and when it is not. People have different thresholds for what they consider acceptable, and there's a whole bunch of social factors to it, like in every situation.
All I've come to realise is that I don't need to let anyone I'm not close to police me. It's nonsensical. If I am breaking no laws, and simply sating my desires, then what business is it of a stranger what I do? What do I care if it makes them feel bad? While I am a generous person, it's important to remember that offense is taken, not given.
The only people who actually feel bad about someone who's interesting enough to capture the spotlight keeping it on, are those who feel so insecure in themselves and their own accomplishments, they are unable to let others have theirs. I understand that, and I sympathise. That's why I used to go along with what I was told. I too thought that was the right thing to do.
In my experience, I have had more positive social interactions in the past ~3 months I've been speaking my mind than the past 8 years I've lived as a "proper person" in this city. My strategy is improving my social success, not decreasing it. I simply do not accept the assertion that it is better to be reticent than assertive. It does not fit with what I've observed about who seems happy with their lives, and who feels helpless, anxious, and weak.
Same here. I lost countless occasions to express an idea or a joke because I didn't manage to speak and the topic shifted enough that the idea became off-topic when I could speak.
But I usually don't think I'm more relevant than the person who managed to speak before me or don't have the energy to impose, so I just listen.
In a group of 3 or more (especially more) people, there is probably no way to avoid this happening to at least some of the participants multiple times. There simply isn't enough time to get every word in before things get tiresome and people need to re-arrange.
It took until I was well into adulthood to come to that realization.
I've come to enjoy the feeling of having had a good idea to contribute, but seeing that the situation doesn't call for my input, and just letting the moment pass. It's fun to have ideas, and it's fun to figure out whether or not it is the right moment to make your contribution.
Yeah, I agree with that. It really depends on what you're interrupting with. The devil is in the details and the substance, IMHO.
A long time ago, I read a convincing take--it might have been in some kind of pop psychology tractate along the lines of "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus"--that likened ideal interruption mannerisms to snatching the ball from a teammate in basketball.
If you take the ball from a teammate and then turn around and use it to make a 3-point shot from mid-court, nobody's got a problem with that, and they'll happily let you do it again. (That's a "good point"). If you take it and fumble it into the crowd, different story.
I don't know if that's something one can literally deploy, or if it's just pithy verbiage that sounds good. But it tends to be how I (aspirationally) do the interrupting and how I register others' interruptions. Whether it's annoying really depends on what the merit of what was actually said once they preempted the prior conversational execution path. :-)
I think the rule "Don't interrupt" still holds, but is more nuanced. If you just cut someone off while they are talking and start saying whatever you had been wanting to say that whole time, I'd consider that interrupting them. However, I don't consider it interrupting if I am saying something complementary to what they are currently saying that is brief but is signaling that I want to say something.
For example I'd give an auditory cue that I want to say something by saying more words than I normally would just to signal that I'm actively listening such as instead of just saying "mmmhmmm" I'd say "Yeah something similar happened to me" and then give them time to finish up their thought and begin speaking myself OR allow them to move the conversation over to me explicitly.
Depending on the speaker, if they don't pick up on that cue or continue to just ramble on, I repeat and intensify that to the point where I may actually interrupt them so that I can speak, but at that point it's not necessarily a negative behavior, it's just neutral. My interruption negates their negative behavior of orrating rather than conversing.
"You kind of have to interrupt in group conversations or you will never talk at all."
It depends on the group of course, but when it is made up of people, who also want to listen - you don't have to interupt someone. It is enough to use your body language to signal, that you have something to say and there will cone a natural pause for your turn. And this is something, you can actually train. Your pose, your standing, your face expression, your gestic, etc.
In a group setting that is particularly prone to overspeaking, I find literally raising your hand always works. Someone inevitably notices quickly, points it out, everyone chuckles and shuts up, and you suddenly have the floor.
Raising a finger in a moment when the current speaker notices, is a more decent variant.
But I also stood with my hand literaly raised for quite some time and waited until the agitated speaker(s) stopped and finally listened to what I had to say. Or not and I simply left, but that is not always possible.
As I hit reply, I realized we're talking about different fingers, but that actually works very well amongst my coworkers. There's a nice break where every laughs their asses off and then you have the floor.
I find the hard part is when someone stops talking and everyone else is ready to say something.
You kind of have to talk over everyone else for a few seconds until they give up? I’ve found that’s the only way I can ever say anything in certain groups but it still feels wrong.
Google Meet has the concept of "raising your hand" by clicking a button, which we've used in meetings at work with a fair amount of success. I've also had luck by literally raising my hand on the video (one of the reasons video is actually quite useful for conference calls).
And raising your hand doesn't have to be like when you were in school, it can be as subtle as very slightly raising a finger or 2 (body language).
Zoom has the “raise your hand feature,” and it manages a queue of people who have raised their hands so that they can speak in order. We use this at work, it is especially great for large meetings which otherwise can devolve into chaos.
A small but interesting feature is that each participant can turn on an option where if the software thinks they are physically raising their hand, it behaves as if they clicked the “raise hand” button. I like it.
I don’t use Google Meet, perhaps it has similar functionality.
You’re right, it doesn’t have to be obvious - but if you do it like you did in school, others will usually chuckle and you’ll lighten the mood in the room a bit. I’m a bit of a “funny guy” and so that always works for me, but YMMV of course.
Rude interrupt has been taking a definite toll on me. Many people do this and I can't take it anymore. It's offensive and wasteful.
I talk very fast, shortly, and pack my sentences with information. So it's not like I waste people's time with complacent drooling. I don't. But still, those people will cover me mid-sentence with their yapping so that none of us gets the rest of both streams.
Why ?? Someone suggested I make people feel insecure. I don't know.
It gets me to the point of near acting-out. As if we were walking together and you would repeatedly - voluntarily - step on my foot ? And I'm supposed to go along with this ?
Do you suffer from this, and how do you deal with it ?
> As if we were walking together and you would repeatedly - voluntarily - step on my foot ?
I’m not a witness to your conversations. Take this with a grain of salt.
There’s a certain amount of “floor time” you get in a conversation before somebody else gets a turn. The right amount is going to be different depending on the individual people talking, their cultural backgrounds, and the nature of the conversation. If you try packing your sentences more densely full of information, then it’s natural that the amount of time you speak would be correspondingly shorter.
And no, this does not mean that other people need to compete with your level of density, or that they need to say things which are constructive to the conversation. Other people may simply want a chance to participate in the conversation as a speaker.
If we go with the metaphor about walking together—suppose we are in a museum, and you keep running ahead to the next room in the museum before I am finished looking at this room. If you like walking through museums quickly so you can see more pieces, and I like walking through museums slowly so I can spend more time looking at each piece, then we are going to have to come up with some kind of compromise.
If we go with a different metaphor, imagine that you are playing chess. You do not get to make extra moves just because you are faster. Imagine you play chess twice as fast as I do, and every time I make a move, you make two moves.
Again, I’m not a participant in your conversations, so this is conjecture and may not reflect reality.
>I talk very fast, shortly, and pack my sentences with information.
As a listener, I find the people easiest to listen to are those who speak slowly and concisely.
Fast speech is harder to understand than slow speech, especially depending on the speaker's accent and vocabulary. In particular, speaking slowly is a skill that people who hope to be intellectual must learn.
Short speech is not the same as concise speech, because short speech might be missing critical information that the speaker would know but the listener would not without conveyance. Concise speech, by contrast, is speech that is short by virtue of removing all unnecessary expressions.
"Packed" speech is the opposite of concise speech, because the listener must break down your speech in order to understand it. A proper paragraph of 1 to 3 sentences in large type is easier to grasp than a "packed" paragraph of 10 to 20 sentences in small type, to put it in literary terms.
Effective communication is about conveying information in a way the listener will understand. If your listeners interrupt you in general, that might mean you need to step back and adjust how you speak.
> I talk very fast, shortly, and pack my sentences with information
might mean some people find it quite difficult to listen to you? And perhaps "need" to interrupt in order to clarify some of that packed information, or just because the torrent is overwhelming?
I get you, but it's not that. I don't torrent. My bursts are short and in case they would take longer I'd have no problem with stopping as soon as the person signals a need with "wait!.." or "Ok, I get it" or a gesture. I long for dense conversations and so am totally fine with constructive interrupts.
No, those people jam my sentence mid-way and it's awful and turns the convo into a fight for the choir.
> I get you, but it's not that. I don't torrent. My bursts are short…
Are you sure? This may not be as true as you think it is, in my experience.
I have ADHD, so tend to talk fast, excitedly, and pack my sentences full of info. I have found, through experience, that intentionally slowing down and explaining a little more goes a long way toward understanding and productive discourse.
ADHD people, in particular, often see connections where neurotypical people don’t; making those connective leaps explicit is often extremely helpful in that context, but it’s easy to assume that something obvious to you is obvious to someone else, even when it usually isn’t.
Perhaps it's the nature of your bursts that make other feel they need to interrupt, lest they fail to get a word in edgewise: a fire hose of information tends to overwhelm people.
Also, if your audience isn't following you, they may want to interrupt simply to get things back on track. I've seen this happen where devs may be saying things that are technically correct, but the (usually non-devs) just don't follow and start interrupting. Heck, even I feel the need to interrupt devs when they are going on a tangent, even if that tangent is technically correct.
If I had to give one piece of conversational advice in general (not just for you but for anybody), it's to make short pauses on a regular basis, and immediately cede the floor to anybody who begins to interrupt. It will make them feel better that they can get their opinion heard, and you can always "steal" the floor again if necessary.
Some people would see their signalling of understanding difficulty as weakness. Regardless, I suspect interruption almost always indicates that the listener simply isn't gaining value from what I'm saying, for whatever reason.
There are at least two ways to interpret this, and neither of them sound pleasant to me. I say this as someone who enjoys meeting and talking with new people, whether engaging in small talk or more deeper topics.
I’d kind of like to ask one of two things:
a) what do you think about “small talk”?
b) do you have some example in mind where someone recently interrupted your sentence you think is perfectly normal and informative? If you can write a quick script, using as many phrases as possible from the situation you remember, including the topic, I bet you could get a free, informative, constructive critique.
If talking very fast in a way packed with information isn't working, have you considered changing that? Perhaps it's very hard for others to deal with.
> Why ?? Someone suggested I make people feel insecure.
Forgive me for oversimplifying here, but the problem isn't that you make them feel insecure. The problem is that they are not your people. If possible, go find your people. They are out there.
There are some people who will misunderstand or forget the topic of the conversation and pack their sentences with tangenial, unncessary information.
The other person in the conversation must interrupt or ignore that, or there's risk that the time spent talking will be wasted on the tangent.
Sometimes what appears to be a tangent is actually an introduction to a previously unseen but crucial aspect, but that needs up front connection in order to hold the listener's attention.
Of course, this all only matters when the conversation has a specific goal.
I've worked on not interrupting people for my entire adult life. I get excited when listening to a conversation and want to start the ping pong of back and forth. This comes across as not listening and rude, when I actually am listening and am wanting to throw out prompts for more information. But, now I tend to just let a person go on.
To address your point, there could be a couple things going on. If you're packing so much information in short sentences people may be looking for spots to ask questions. Something I've been doing for awhile is to put almost awkwardly long pauses before moving on to another idea so people have the space to a) recognize the pause and b) time to jump in. If you're talking really fast, people may not see space to interject. If you don't want to do pauses, simply ask others for their thoughts.
Going by the diagram in the article, I hope you can see, that the approach in the Church of Strong Civility is better able to scale. As a devotee of the Church of Interruption, I hope you can recognize, that too many participants can lead to an overload of the main audio bus (too many interruptions). This reduces the efficiency of communication.
In the CoSC there are side channels (one for each participant), via which they can signal their desire to speak. Once the current speaker has finished, the participants who desire to speak can negotiate the next turn (e.g. by a rule that the person who has talked least may go first). This way, constant collisions on the main audio bus can be avoided.
>I talk very fast, shortly, and pack my sentences with information
I can't help wondering what this sounds like (in good way!).
I think I have a tendency to over-communicate ideas/thoughts (especially if it's a topic I am passionate about) and that people may find it exhausting to process that amount of information consistently.
My hunch is the interruption is so you don't go that deep into the topic, because maybe they haven't thought about it and don't want to sound uneducated or that they really don't care about the topic and want it to remain superficial.
Reminds me of Joscha Bach’s definition of a nerd, from his Lex Friedman podcast episode:
<paraphrase>
“The definition of a nerd is someone who thinks conversation is for peer reviewing ideas.”
“What do non-nerds think conversation is for?”
“Negotiating alignment.”
</paraphrase>
A good difference to keep in mind when we want to bend parallel conversations with the alignment negotiators to intersection.
That's pretty interesting because while reading the article I often thought "that's not at all what I think/mean when I answer that". I feel like this article describes one specific conversation type
I can usually deal with English well enough but I can’t figure out what “negotiating alignment” means. How is alignment a negotiation? Can you/someone maybe describe with some more words what Bach means?
Aligning your views with someone else's may require changes to both sets of views (yours and theirs), which could involve negotiation. Consider two people planning a trip, each compromising slightly to achieve a plan they are both happy with.
Peers reviewing ideas is but one step above rubber-ducking: the peer does not (necessarily) have ideas of its own, but merely serves to verify how you've formulated yours. At least, that's my interpretation.
"Peer reviewing ideas" is a bad formulation for me.
It's about whether the discussion is general (valid for anyone) or specific (these people, here, now). The latter gives some weight to subjective arguments and arguments from authority, the former does not, and this is a big qualitative difference.
Alice: “I need you to do X.”
Bob: “OK, I’ll do X.”
Not much negotiating, but Bob has aligned to Alice’s request.
More subtle:
Carla: “Do you think we should do X or Y?”
Danny: “I’m leaning X but Y might have the following benefits…”
Carla: “I’m leaning Y for those exact reasons. Why do you think X?”
And so on, until alignment is reached. Hope this helps!
Two kinds of debate: one where the expected outcome is a refinement of ideas, another where the expected outcome is an agreement on future behaviours (“alignment”). If you approach someone who only converses to negotiate alignment, they are likely to take your seeking of peer review feedback as a mindgame designed to make them do more of what you want to do.
For me, this explains why some compulsively managerial types are incredibly averse to conceptual abstraction in conversation: it comes off as a bamboozlement attempt!
> When someone has taught you something or changed your mind on something, let them know.
Pro tip-- you can change your mind in a conversation at any time!
I hear stories from so many people who feel like they got stuck agreeing to meet up with someone. Or perhaps they felt obligated to follow some course of action just because they initially misspoke, and now the person would think such-and-such, which would reflect poorly on them, etc., so they just grin and bear it.
At least in the U.S., normies will be totally fine if you change your mind and immediately tell them you don't want to do (or cannot do) such-and-such a thing in casual, polite conversation. The only people who will be weirdos about you showing basic human agency are narcissists. And if you have never experienced telling a narcissist no, I would strongly recommend starting as soon as possible because it's simply divine. :)
> I have a friend who has somewhat extreme political views, but he will always say things like, “I believe X, but I bet you believe Y and you always have interesting takes, so I’d love to hear your thoughts”. It’s a great way to disagree in a positive and constructive way, and I always enjoy conversations with him. In our conversations we also usually both concede points, as described in the previous tip, which makes the conversations even more engaging.
This is such a great point. I wish we could do more of this. I really try to.
Where I run into a wall though is if the person doesn’t have interesting takes. Their position is basically assigned to them because of their identity. And the best they can express is parroting lines they’ve heard.
I especially like the tactic of validating the person you’re talking to in order to communicate that you’re interested in what they’re saying.
E.g. “That’s a really good point” or “That’s really interesting” or “I really like that thought”. And if someone tells a mediocre joke but you want to continue engaging, simply saying “That’s really funny” is a good substitute when the joke isn’t funny enough to actually laugh!
If your sole goal is to make the other person feel like they’re having a great conversation with you, the simplest advice is to make sure they’re talking at least 1.5x as much as you. When someone does the majority of the talking, that person more often walks away feeling like they had a great conversation.
> make sure they’re talking at least 1.5x as much as you
I completely agree, but be aware this can backfire. My wife said that on our first date, she felt she was at a job interview. I asked so many questions in order to keep her talking about herself (people love to talk about themselves). I guess it worked because we got married, but still, she did not feel entirely comfortable about that first date.
Maybe that’s why this article says keep it at 50/50, not 1.5x.
I’m not sure about saying ‘that’s really funny’ when someone tells a crap joke though. At least where I live in the UK, that comment would come off as insincere and be quite distancing - better to just smile or tease them gently
> I especially like the tactic of validating the person you’re talking to in order to communicate that you’re interested in what they’re saying.
This works in many situations and not just the type you describe. For example, if someone comes to you very upset, it's best to also be upset but at a slightly lower level. Then, you can walk the person down. It's much more effective than remaining completely calm.
It's been awhile since I read it, but I believe it was in How to Win Friends and Influence People that said, generally whoever speaks the most in a conversation will feel as though it was a good conversation.
Oddly enough for me, because I tend to over analyze every interaction, I consider it a terrible conversation if I ended up speaking too much.
I've seen this described as "active listening". But it may appear disingenious. It's really easy to fake "I like that" without having any actual interest in the topic. What's much more sincere is showing that you're paying attention by actually engaging with what was said. "So we went up there." "To the mountain, right?" "Yeah, we went to the mountain and..."
I already know what I know. The other person knows things I don't know. 1.5 is excessive unless they're incredibly interesting, but if someone's worth talking with, what they have to say is more valuable than what I have to say because it's potentially new information to me.
I had a ton of difficulty with social skills, especially professionally.
I was very, very interested in being right, and proving how smart I was.
Two things changed my life and attitude:
1) I started going to regional burns (burning man). It introduced me to a whole different way of thinking and mindfulness.
2) I treated my weakness as a technical issue, and hit Google to research a solution. "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie came back as the technical manual for dealing with people.
I memorized all the rules, and kept them on my computer screen all day as a reminder. I applied them to every conversation.
That, more than anything, I think, is what launched my career to the next level.
It also had a profound improvement in my personal relationships.
First thing I did after reading the article was to CTRL+F "influence people". Truth be told I probably never needed it, but it put things I had been doing my entire life, at times without realizing, into words better than I could have and so I knew that the remaining quarter I hadn't been doing was the very truth, and I got to it while still in uni.
The biggest lessons that stuck with me, who really liked discussing to the level of debating when I was younger, were to never correct somebody to their face, and to, whenever I was in the wrong in the slightest, admit my mistakes quickly and with downright enthusiasm.
The latter is not only a great way to be honest to yourself, to maintain integrity, to never suffer that slimy feel after trying to weasel your way out of something, but admitting you were wrong about something will help you get more out of almost any argument or situation, despite what one might assume at first.
I'll quote the relevant part, and despite looking like a big block of text, it is really easy to read and remember well:
"I frequently walked in this park with Rex, my little Boston bulldog. He was a friendly, harmless little hound; and since we rarely met anyone in the park, I took Rex along without a leash or a muzzle. One day we encountered a mounted policeman in the park, a policeman itching to show his authority. "What do you mean by letting that dog run loose in the park without a muzzle and leash?" he reprimanded me. "Don't you know it's against the law?" "Yes, I know it is," I replied softy, "but I didn't think he would do any harm out here." "You didn't think! You didn't think! The law doesn't give a tinker's damn about what you think. That dog might kill a squirrel or bite a child. Now, I'm going to let you off this time; but if I catch this dog out here again without a muzzle and a leash, you'll have to tell it to the judge." I meekly promised to obey. And I did obey - for a few times. But Rex didn't like the muzzle, and neither did I; so we decided to take a chance. Everything was lovely for a while, and then we struck a snag. Rex and I raced over the brow of a hill one afternoon and there, suddenly - to my dismay - I saw the majesty of the law, astride a bay horse. Rex was out in front, heading straight for the officer. I was in for it. I knew it. So I didn't wait until the policeman started talking. I beat him to it. I said: "Officer, you've caught me red handed. I'm guilty. I have no alibis, no excuses. You warned me last week that if I brought the dog out here again without a muzzle you would fine me." "Well, now," the policeman responded in a soft tone. "I know it's a temptation to let a little dog like that have a run out here when nobody is around." "Sure it's a temptation," I replied, "but it is against the law." "Well, a little dog like that isn't going to harm anybody," the policeman remonstrated. "No, but he may kill squirrels," I said. "Well now, I think you are taking this a bit too seriously," he told me. "I'll tell you what you do. You just let him run over the hill there where I can't see him - and we'll forget all about it."
That policeman, being human, wanted a feeling of importance; so when I began to condemn myself, the only way he could nourish his self-esteem was to take the magnanimous attitude of showing mercy. But suppose I had tried to defend myself - well, did you ever argue with a policeman? But instead of breaking lances with him, I admitted that he was absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong; I admitted it quickly, openly, and with enthusiasm. The affair terminated graciously in my taking his side and his taking my side. Lord Chesterfield himself could hardly have been more gracious than this mounted policeman, who, only a week previously, had threatened to have the law on me. If we know we are going to be rebuked anyhow, isn't it far better to beat the other person to it and do it ourselves? Isn't it much easier to listen to self-criticism than to bear condemnation from alien lips? Say about yourself all the derogatory things you know the other person is thinking or wants to say or intends to say - and say them before that person has a chance to say them. The chances are a hundred to one that a generous, forgiving attitude will be taken and your mistakes will be minimized just as the mounted policeman did with me and Rex."
> The worst conversations are those where both parties are waiting their turn to talk, saying as much as they can before getting interrupted, and then being forced to listen to the other.
I have a client who turns every conversation into this. It’s very difficult to communicate any information to him. He easily speaks for 40 minutes moving from topic to topic without letting anybody break in. And if somebody interrupts with a point or question his default is “No, that’s not the point” without having heard anything that was said.
> If she asked to see a hall pass from a freshman, they’d give her the finger. They swore at her and were generally rude. The behavior was so out of line that seniors would step in and tell them not to talk to her like that.
Shouldn't such students be expelled from school immediately?
When the phenomenon is widespread, that becomes politically untenable and the bar for unacceptable deviancy has to be adjusted, as with anything else. This is a cousin of the idea that "they can't arrest us all" that one sees in acts of collective disobedience--some of which, as we know, have been quite constructive in history and are laudably described as part of "social movements", while others are just hooliganism and criminality. Drawing the line is always messy.
From what I had heard from my teacher acquaintances (most of whom are my former teachers) anecdotally, it sounds like behaviour trends were going sharply negative before Covid, and that Covid just provides a legitimate-sounding clinical cover, along with "mental health" and the rest. Of course, everyone says that all the time about everything any year, so it can be hard to separate noise from signal sometimes. But they had me pretty convinced.
We got called into school by our son's English teacher. During the poetry module, my son had gotten a bit frustrated and said, "Who the heck is ever going to use fucking poetry in real life?"
"While I felt he had raised an excellent question", his English teacher said, "I didn't agree with the way the point was expressed. I'm sure you see my difficulty."
We did. And we appreciated his good humor.
We had a carefully considered discussion with our son about respect, and appropriate language.
Funny on the downvotes, so I'll add some context. The kid in this case may have been right, but their delivery made them ineffective and got them in trouble.
Being right and sticking it in someone's face often feels great at the time, but it rarely leads to a persuasive argument.
There once was a boy named Danny Day,
he always maintained his right of way,
he was right, dead right, as he drove along,
but he's just as dead, as if he were wrong.
Hall passes aren't about socialization; they're about dominance, submission, and domestication. And I can't honestly think of a purpose that they legitimately serve. It's just not that hard to tell the difference between the kids who are legitimately going to the restroom, and those that are wandering around aimlessly.
They seem to me like a leftover from a Victorian age in which the purpose of an education was to grind children into submission instead of nurturing them. I am genuinely surprised that such barbarisms are still used in American schools.
Suspension and expulsion are somewhat extreme disciplinary measures. They’re not particularly effective at changing student behavior, they primarily serve to remove students from school so that school can continue without their disruption. A student who is insubordinate to a teacher in the hallway isn’t disrupting school or endangering anyone.
How will that help? Sounds like a behavioral issue that requires correction, not a punitive response. If every rude student got expelled, there wouldn't be many left in school.
Yes, they should at least be reprimanded, if not outright expelled. However, I think the reason for this is not as much about lack of conversation skills but because the students believe there are no repurcussion for such behavior.
> Shouldn't such students be expelled from school immediately?
Very strong "get off my lawn" energy here.
Yes, students (and people as a whole) should be respectful to those around them who're working to help them progress in life, but expelling a student for expelling student from school for giving the middle finger or being rude is extremely disproportionate to their action and doesn't address the issue at all.
This very post sets up the premise that adolescents have been missing out on valuable social interactions due to the pandemic - Do you really believe that ostracising them further will help that in any way?
“They’d give her the finger. They swore at her and were generally rude.”
I couldn’t even imagine doing something like this. Even if I did, I would get slapped(20 years ago) and rightfully so. If you can’t respect the teachers, I’m not sure how well you’ll do in real life.
One conversational skill that's always been so tough for me is interrupting. When you're in charge of a meeting, you are also responsible for giving everyone an opportunity to respond should they have something to offer. Unfortunately, you often end up with a small fraction of people who consistently have zero sense for how much airtime they're using and just go on and on and on. I've tried so many different techniques on how to appropriately and gently interrupt--from soft-touch things like asking them specific, narrow questions to get them to feel like they're done to more direct positive-transitions like "oh wow, that's a really good way to put it; does anyone else have any thoughts on that?". It's always felt so painful and difficult but I can't seem to crack a way to do it otherwise.
I think that’s a distinct problem from the one the article describes; the article seems to be written about mostly one on one communication. Group conversations change the dynamics massively, even moreso when the conversation must be productive, as opposed to just enjoyable.
This was more of a "yes, and" comment. The social instinct that is drilled into (most) everyone to not interrupt that this article mentions makes interrupting someone that is dominating the conversation way harder.
Fair point! I think too few people recognize that the dynamics of 1:1 conversation and many:many and 1:many conversations are so distinctly unique, so I do think that recognizing that is important!
I interrupt sometimes because of my ADHD, not because I am rude, but because I am disabled. If I don't get it out, it'll be lost forever. Its important to remember not everyone is running on the same playing field.
> I interrupt sometimes because of my ADHD, not because I am rude, but because I am disabled. If I don't get it out, it'll be lost forever. Its important to remember not everyone is running on the same playing field.
Is it? Just because that is your tendency doesn't mean that the other person must adapt to your behavior or redefine their perception of polite conversation.
You could also resolve to interrupt less often, even at the expense of losing some input into the conversation. I don't have ADHD but I do have a crappy short-term memory, and this is what I try to do. People routinely overflow my stack, and when it comes my turn to talk, I pop whatever is off the top. Or I'll simply ask someone to repeat whatever they just said: "sorry, you said something interesting a moment ago, but I lost it...the thing just before $blah."
Admittedly this is a gray area, and there are disabilities (speech issues, Tourette's, etc.) where a polite listener will make accommodations. But it's a lot to ask someone to forgive chronic interruption, when the reason for the interruption is that you're afraid you might forget things. I imagine that most people have things that they wish they'd have said at such-and-such a time.
There’s a middle ground here—there’s no objective standard for what polite conversation is. It’s not only cultural, differing depending on the context and cultural backgrounds of the participants, but idiosyncratic, depending on the particular individuals involved.
“I have a hard time in conversations, I hope my interruptions aren’t too much, please let me know if I need to dial it back” is a perfectly workable request. Good people are willing to adapt to the behaviors of neurodivergent people, even when those behavior would otherwise be seen as impolite.
When I'm interrupted, I often lose my train of thought. I might be able to recover it after some struggle, but not always, and it's very exhausting and I often give up, especially if it happens several times in a short time span. Articulating words and sentences and thoughts is a slow and tiring process for me.
So how would we do if we had to speak together?
I will let someone speak as soon as possible if they express the need to speak with some body / face clue however.
It’s not, if you explain why. It’s quite easy to say “I have ADHD, so if you see me taking notes it’s because I don’t want to interrupt but also don’t want to forget my thoughts, so please don’t be bothered by it” and I do this all the time when I strike up an important conversation with someone new.
That would require a pen and paper to hand, forever, just in case you end up in a conversation. The act of finding said pen & paper would be enough for it to be gone forever.
Yeah, it's really interesting how I'm able not to blurt out stuff interrupting a peer mid-sentence when on stimulants, versus without, where I'd do that without thinking to the point of saying sorry, and go into circular trains of thought where it takes sometime to get to the core idea.
I've also been in the other end, normally when I'm sleep deprived + stimulant; I'd get very irritated with interruptions, sort of like the classical type-A obsessive coworker with little patience that we all hate.
There also some cultures more or less tolerant to this, in Germany people can be quite anal about this, similar to North America in colder states, while in southern Europe it's fine.
Sorry for going off topic, but I found your earlier comment about tinnitus and can't reply there. I also got tinnitus from bupropion and have other similarities with your case. I'm wondering if you're open to comparing notes. If so you can reach me at darlingeffect6 at gmail, or let me know how I can contact you. Thanks!
Hey! Just wrote you to that address, mind that it comes from a Proton email so I'd check the spam folder. Otherwise reach me at mickelsenhn at proton me :)
I understand about ADHD and not losing the idea, but consider writing it down instead. You can bring it into the conversation later and you can also revise it once you have gotten it out of your head. I carry 3x5 cards for this reason so I don't lose ideas when they occur to me.
> Imagine that I tell you I live in Vegas and that you don’t think that you would like living in Vegas.
I wonder why it would ever be necessary to “push back” against someone’s choice of place to live. The friend in this hypothetical isn’t trying to get you to move to Las Vegas; so why insert your values and preferences into the conversation out-of-the-gate? Would it not be better to simply ask questions about your friend’s experience there? Otherwise, even in the most benign option presented in the post, it comes across as a form of status assertion.
As a fair to middling conversationalist I actually enjoy when people break rules like 50/50 airtime. It takes the pressure off me and usually only happens when they are excited. I find excessively polite 50/50 conversations like watching tennis. “What do you do?”, “and what do YOU do?” etc.
This is a very good post if you like to live in a society where the way of talking is highly stereotyped and interesting conversations are almost missing.
One more I'll add is to show/say some response, anything.
One group of people I've found difficult to interact with is those who won't show any emotion or acknowledgement. It could just be a visual cue, a nod or a smile.
I've noticed when the other party doesn't provide any visual cues, we tend to talk more either into hard pressed convincing or make some assumptions to go in depth into it until we get a response.
I've noticed that I talk usually more than necessary to someone who is quiet. I've tried being on the other side and have noticed the same behavior from the counter-party. I guess we are hard wired to get some or any response for our contributions.
These are great tips, and something to pay close attention to if you find yourself struggling in basic socialisation with strangers, or get the sense that you're widely regarded as overly intense or disagreeable.
But ultimately, as with all such things, it's really a question of inner and family culture, and goes to broader issues of intelligence and acculturation, more so than outward mannerisms. A person constitutionally uninterested in what others have to say because they have a very self-involved approach to interactions in general isn't going to revolutionise their thinking from a few tips on how to converse better. The psychology that gives rise to that is much broader and more insidious, not a simple failure of decorum or manners.
Notwithstanding that, a possible downside of an overly fundamentalist reading of these tips is that, when applied too literally, they might foreclose on ultimately productive conversations, and especially on persuasion. There is such a thing as _too_ agreeable. As any skilled public-sphere rhetorician knows, conversations aren't just about "positive feelings" and "good vibes", and so-called "negative" feelings have their place too. For example, making someone feel--to any degree whatsoever, big or small--stupid or ignorant, whether to themselves or in front of their friends, is a valid and occasionally necessary strategy for changing hearts and minds. No, you won't be well-liked if that's your main shtick, and as with all sharp weapons, it is most effective when used sparingly. Still, it has its place.
The incentives and goals are somewhat different in a semi-private conversation vs a highly performative public debate, too, as the author of the definitive 19th century guide to bullshit tells us. :-) [ http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/ ]
Another highly relevant instance is getting someone interested in something they weren't previously interested in: it does occasionally take some force. Those of us who have children might find this particularly familiar. No, fundamentally you can't jam something down the throat of someone who's just not interested, and if you do that a lot, you'll get the sense after a while that people detour around you. But in a world of narrow specialisations and obscure niches, lots of listeners exist in a liminal space where they're not really sure they're interested--which defaults to a weak "no"--and their verbal cues and body language will reflect that. But if you key off of them with the sensitivity and immediacy suggested by the author, that really precludes any shot at making the sale, so to speak.
Is there a list of euphemisms that we should watch for during a conversation? I would have thought that the other side was interested, especially given the exclamations.
I wouldn't put much stock in this. Sometimes people will say this and mean it and other times they won't and the only way to feel the difference is non-verbal + context. There is no book of hidden phrases, signals or cheat codes.
Honestly I would approach the entire article with skepticism. Guys like the author are mostly dogs barking at the mirror. The underlying philosophy that socialization has a fixed set of rules that can be gamed and optimized is faulty.
Yeah, I was really confused when the author followed that by writing, "If that’s the response I get, I’m totally done and moving on."
If that's the response I get, it sounds like the other person wants me to tell them more. I might follow up with, "have you ever done anything like that?" or a million other things.
My wife and I are doing the digital nomad thing and we try to talk to people as often as possible. Since we fly everywhere and take Uber, we try to strike up conversations with our Uber drivers.
We also always sit at the bar when we eat. People at the bar are more amenable to striking up random conversations with strangers than almost anywhere else.
Just last night I went to the bar myself and the couple next to me was speaking Spanish. I politely said excuse me and said I overheard them speaking Spanish and said that I wasn’t eavesdropping - I didn’t know enough to.
They laughed and we struck up a three hour conversation. We exchanged information and they said they are in Orlando all the time. That’s where we will be for half of the year.
On a professional note, I now work in cloud consulting that’s heavily customer facing and knowing how to strike up a conversation becomes very important especially during pre-sales and when you meet in person.
I don’t watch sports and usually has nothing interesting to talk about that wasn’t news or politics until I started traveling a lot and had a genuine interest in other peoples travel experience.
A mnemonic to help get the convo going or if you hit a rut: FORD: Family, Occupation, Recreation, Dreams.
Also "mirroring", which is a tool in negotiation, can be a useful way to get someone to elaborate. Basically: "It sounds like [summarize their points]".
Meh. When I hear "What do you do?", followed by "What do you do for fun?" I get irritated.
If both of you are at a conference/meetup, I find this a bit lazy and really makes me not want to talk to you (because you must be pretty boring if this all you can come up with).
I play this game (in my head), for how long the other person ask me. I NEVER ask these questions, which means I'm striving to make the conversation interesting/relevant.
If you've run out of things to say, because the other person doesn't give you anything, just move on. They are just not into you or don't want to talk.
It's a simple tool. Like any tool, you need to know when and how to use it. A conference would not be a great example, as there is generally plenty of other context to discuss there.
And yes, knowing when/how to exit a conversation is another important skill in itself.
But "run out of things to say" is not always accurate. It's sometimes "locked up on what to say next" or "a struggle to get over the hump to both parties opening up". Sometimes there are still interesting conversations to be had if you can get past that. If you write off everyone just because they aren't great conversationalists or are introverts, you will skip over a lot of interesting people.
yeah sorry i don't know who this person is so the minute they wrote that into the article and not bother to editorialize a bit kinda made me not want to read the article.
there have always been students with antisocial behavior. if this article came out in 2002-2003 would someone have written, "9/11" or if in 2011, "H1N1" would the author not challenge this notion?
Nice tips, but context specific. In my observation and experience, no rules apply when power dynamics and culture specific nuances are in play.
Examples: A setting where the group has pre-decided to exclude you - think snooty neighbourhoods. Pre-conceived biases cant be overcome.
An unruly boss who bulldozes and dominates. A cool crowd that stigmatizes the nerds. Or cultures where fragile masculinity hinges upon dominating at all costs and multiple folks speaking over each other.
Also: these rules are hard to remember and apply in rapid conversation, for folks who are borderline autistic.
1. If someone mentions having just returned from country X, do not take this as an invitation to launch into extended monologue on your trip to country Y of ten years ago.
2. Do not ask people what they "do" -- to a shift worker of low-level service jobs, it yanks the mind's attention back to recent humiliations inflicted by rude customers or oppressive managers. Similarly any other question that might be heard as an attempt to gauge social status.
You will see these faux pas a lot -- the trick is to not fall into them yourself.
Although I agree with the interruption part, I think it's sometimes worth cutting people who interrupt you a bit of slack as some people tend to talk more when they get nervous.
I like to interrupt people when I know that I have information to share that will invalidate the next 10min of what they have to say. At that point you’re just wasting everyone’s time if you don’t interrupt.
For example, if you start explaining your fantastic plan for what we can build in 3 days, but I know we have a 1 day budget.
> I like to interrupt people when I know that I have information to share that will invalidate the next 10min of what they have to say.
It’s unlikely that they are delivering a 10 minute monologue without ever offering a pause to let you politely and naturally interject with your information.
More than that though, the idea that you have no need to listen to what they are saying - because you know what it is and is likely a waste of everyone’s time - tells me that you are probably a terrible listener and likely a difficult person to have a conversation with.
In the example you give, by shutting them up, you basically have shut the door on any good ideas they might have - ideas that might be good regardless of the time budget.
This is a common mistake, and I’ve been known to make it too.
You cannot predict what someone is about to say, ever. You can make guesses, and sometimes you’ll be right, but the worst case of “I know what you’re going to say so let me cut you off” being wrong is far, far worse, than letting it play through and being right.
In the former case, you reinforce that this person will simply stop talking to you or telling you stories because they think you are rude. In the latter case, you’ve wasted a few minutes of time but continue developing a relationship and building trust with which you can ask clarifying questions without coming off as rude and alienating your conversation partner.
I think you’re misreading what I said. I’m not talking about predicting what they’re about to say, I’m talking about correcting priors that you know are wrong.
If someone starts with “here’s what we can do in 3 days” and you know only 1 day is available, that’s the perfect moment to spend 10 seconds correcting an assumption. No incorrect predictions necessary.
I used to interrupt people when I found them boring. Of course that signaled to them that I found them boring. That’s obviously not a great signal to send if you want to build a relationship, so I learned to try and find something interesting about otherwise obviously boring statements.
As someone with pretty bad ADHD... it's literally not something I can control. Most people who deal with me regularly are likely now used to it, but meeting new people it can definitely be off-putting.
You can. I have bad ADHD too, and you can learn coping mechanisms for it. Get a little notebook and write notes as you listen, so you don’t forget, for example.
It isn’t easy, but it’s possible, and over time it does get easier.
Part of it is how I was raised, part of it is that I'll forget whatever I have to say in like 5 seconds. Often times, if I'm having deep technical discussion I'll interrupt to ask clarifying questions while the specific topic is still relevant because it's easier for me to digest related information without gaps.
> I'll interrupt to ask clarifying questions while the specific topic is still relevant
As someone who usually does not like to be interrupted, I would have no problem being interrupted this way. I prefer being understood as I speak so I can clarify and possibly adapt as we speak.
More specifically: interrupting to advance or clarify what a speaker is saying is very, very different from interrupting to redirect a conversation (especially interrupting to change topic to the interrupter's preference).
Interrupts from an active, engaged listener are usually received positively.
Most people do not seem to mind, and I usually try to avoid cutting people off as much as possible; even if that means I have to be like "hold on, did you mean xyz?" as they start the next sentence/topic. Usually works out pretty well.
On that note, asking a clarifying question in the form of a statement of your current understanding of something is IME the best way to come to an understanding of complex discussion.
I agree with this, fwiw, and do this too. Interrupting is often also a tactic for keeping me engaged, given the ADHD. My advice in the above comment is meant for tangential interruptions rather than clarifying interruptions.
My brain is a stack, and most people are queues, so if I don’t write it down, I have already forgotten it; but that’s only really important for interruptions that lead to tangents.
I'm skeptical that most people's short-term memory is queue-like. More likely that they are better at remembering earlier stack entries, or that they are simply less neurotic when forgetting about them.
That hasn’t been my experience. Most people around me seem to have mental checklists, and new things get added to the bottom of those checklists, not the top.
On the other hand, it seriously drives me insane trying to talk to people who interrupt. I want to finish one sentence and they keep interrupting all the time. Of course, I probably should interrupt more often because I usually have a thought and it's irrelevant by the time I can say it, but I just can't keep a train of thought when others interrupt me. My cache gets flushed and my buffers cleared.
Another essential is to just give up. Can't recommend enough! Similar to the 5% rule article about shitty customers. Just drop the people who do this shit. Also - sometimes you just run into people with a sour taste in their mouth and they need to cleanse their pallet before you interacting with you.
I lived through this scenario the author has with someone a couple nights ago:
> "The last option is positive disagreement.
> “Vegas? Casinos and desert? What made you choose that?”
> Here you’ve pushed back and expressed that you wouldn’t want to live in Vegas, but you’ve also given me a great opportunity to talk about something positive and to try to sway you in a friendly way."
I did what the author suggests, quite literally. I was like, "Oh, you moved to Vegas? I'm really curious - what is it about Vegas that interested you to move there since you work remote?"
> "For fun."
"Ah, what specifically?"
> "Just fun."
"Do you like casinos? Strip clubs?"
> "Actually, I don't like casinos."
It was like pulling teeth to get a fucking word out of this person. It was pretty annoying too because we were at a very social event but this person acted like a nitwit. I gave up on it and didn't bother interacting with this person much after. They never said hello in the hallway or made any effort later to engage again. I gave them multiple chances to sort their shit out but you can only do so much.
Another story (I just spent a week at a hotel socializing with a few hundred people - so I have a lot of these right now): I was socializing with another person and they were giving some slightly curt answers, to the point of killing conversation and/or really creating a rift between us. I don't often think this but I really had a very unfavorable view of this person after our first engagement. I was like, "Wow, what a dick." They really tried to create some animosity and had been a bit presumptuous - which I found very off-putting. I reflected on it with a couple friends and they agreed - dick behavior. The next day, this person passed me in the hallway, said hi and waved. I responded positively even though it seemed fucking insane. I've had some weird 4D chess shit with whackjobs before - so I was worried I was dealing with another one of these. Later that night, I decide to interact with them again and in a few words it became clear that they were drunk. Suddenly, I was now the most interesting man in the world. We ended up having interesting banter and talked for at least an hour. The next day, we got closer and became more social and they were the last person I talked to during that week at the hotel as they walked me to my room and begged me to stay out longer.
So, it's all kinda fucked, IMO. You can do everything right but some people just have their guard up heavily in the beginning and/or you'll never break through within a reasonable timeframe. Only later if you can talk to them with their guard down, get them to relax, and have a good time with you can you really break through to where they'll engage with you like you're a regular human being. But also - some people are just part of that X% you should just not bother with.
I really don't think there's a greater lesson overall with any of what I'm sharing. With enough time - you can find enough cherrypicked data from my own life to counter any claim I'm making. Interacting with other people is often a fucking disaster and I find there's often nothing you could've done except to have just not interacted.
It was kind of painful for me to read this. There are so many reasons someone might not deeply engage in a conversation, and it can feel hurtful, but it's usually not because they are trying to be rude.
They might have had something on their mind, had a bad day at work, didn't want to be at the social event, whatever.
I agree - I give everyone multiple chances. But I’m saying give up at a certain point. Some people just ain’t worth bothering because you’ll never make meaningful progress in the time you have.
Just like replying late consistently in text messages, eventually it becomes a waste of time even if it's with perfectly good intentions. I usually find it though that it's at least a bit callous eventually even if your interlocutor ostensibly has good reasons to be so consistently uncommunicative.
> It was like pulling teeth to get a fucking word out of this person. It was pretty annoying too because we were at a very social event but this person acted like a nitwit.
Sounds to me like someone who doesn't want to be there, but has to be there, and chances are they may have social anxiety and is probably, at this point, highly triggered and probably all they want is some peace and quiet away from people and their vapid small-talk.
And heres you ignoring the "please leave me alone" social cue of their closed answers, and believing this person is a "nitwit" because they're not engaging with you.
Funny indeed, because I long for conversations in a social setting which is not a pre-formatted superficial bs and someone actually wanted to share their thoughts and wanted to know mine.
Sure that’s great man. I like that too, but you don’t have to deride people who don’t want that all the goddamn time. Not sure how egging someone to talk about why they moved somewhere is more than superficial BS though. I promise you there’s much more interesting things to talk about.
I get that and do agree. Wasn't trying to deride, just providing a perspective that everyone is looking for different things from conversations and sure, sometimes the same person may want different things which change based on many factors.
I liked the flavour of the questions given as examples. Asking people about their personal pov and experience relieves them of the duty to be objectively correct and relatively topical to yourself and other listeners. It’s something that analytical speakers often neglect.
This is a really really helpful post. I appreciate a bunch of real-world examples with exact responses and rationale behind them. Many of the communication improvement books, while helpful, don't quite give out a playbook like this.
I noticed people messing up a lot recently. People I know and love revealed themselves as awkward and flawed as I am. I thought that I got better at reading people, but now I’m thinking that covid might have simply made us all a little more awkward.
I don’t like this notion that good conversation must somehow be dishonest. To my mind, the key is being sympathetic to your interlocutors—sympathetic in the old sense, meaning understanding and sharing their emotions.
I enjoyed https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Über_den_Umgang_mit_Menschen , from the XVIII. Its modern namesakes are just "etiquette books", but the original was far from the genre, and more about how one can attempt to get enjoyable and perhaps enlightening conversations, with specific examples concerning a diverse set of personality types. (almost all of which are still here in the XXI)
"Getting along with the rest of the world" might be a translation, similar to the french notion of savoir être (as opposed to savoir faire)...
Interesting, my takeaway from the article to be honest in almost all cases.
Positive disagreement seemed like a good example of being honest in a pro-social way. Expressing your honest view in a way that doesn't shut anyone down.
The author argues that mirroring people's opinions is boring for the other person.
> The author argues that mirroring people's opinions is boring for the other person.
It’s also a major red flag in interpersonal relationships. I tend to keep my distance with people who use mirroring tactics because it can often be a sign of underlying personality disorders (chameleon effect).
>I tend to keep my distance with people who use mirroring tactics because it can often be a sign of underlying personality disorders (chameleon effect).
> I will let someone violate every rule on this list and will do my best to give them the conversation they want. I just won’t seek out more conversations in the future.
Call me weird, but for me this mindset is more rude than all the "rules" put together. You let the other person lead the conversation and invest into it only to never seek conversation with them again, leaving them wondering what went wrong. Wasting someone else's time aside, this is incredibly rude.
Yet this person puts themself on a pedestal high enough that they can definite "rules" of having conversations.
The first rule on the list should be to respect the person you're talking to. Otherwise there's no reason to continue engaging in a conversation.
I don’t think it’s rude. It’s letting both parties save face. I imagine that brutal honesty could instantly kill the vibe and throw a person off their game for the evening.
Aside from that, some awkward starts can develop into interesting conversations. It pays to show a little patience and kindness. You don’t want to cut your losses too early.
I agree, yet that doesn't seem to be the strategy the author employs. Nor do many other people. In fact having an argumented discussion is heavily discouraged in those "polite" groups and being agreeable is seen as the only acceptable behavior.
In other words I'd much rather have this argument/conversation with you than engage in a conversation with a sole reason to cheer the article and everyone who read.
But then again I'm on HN on New Years, so by default I'm not a winner in the social interaction game.
Unclear what you think you’re supposed to do if you decide ‘hmm I probably won’t voluntarily seek out conversation with them in the future’.
Making that personal choice doesn’t mean you don’t respect them; it’s not ‘fake’ to have the grace of ‘showing up’ in the interaction, even if it’s not going to be a repeat interaction.
The author didn’t sufficiently bow and pronounce himself but a humble peasant, but that doesn’t mean he should be targeted to be knocked down a few pegs; we all must make our own “rules”, or principles and guidelines, for interacting with one another.
> Unclear what you think you’re supposed to do if you decide ‘hmm I probably won’t voluntarily seek out conversation with them in the future’.
For example if a person interrupting you is not acceptable for you, it's healthy to point that out. For example I'm okay woth being interrupting and I don't see a problem interrupting someone who is making a point I already understood but they're being unnecessarily verbose.
Likewise, I'd point out that I resonate with the points they're trying to express and they don't need to be as verbose to make sure they're understood.
However I do see it as rude when a person doesn't understand the point someone is trying to make and then reacts with "Nice" after a long explanation and never seeks a conversation again, because "they didn't get enough time under the spotlight".
That being said, I generally align with what is said in the article, but it is presented from a very weird perspective of a "I-know-it-all" kinda person.
Kids are not objectionable because of lack of socialization. They're objectionable because you're government, and their parents don't like you either. Covid made political lines far more clear.
These might be helpful in institutional environments such as work or school, but generally outside of that there are no such rules... That's the key to unlocking meaningful social interactions with new people. Some people want you to mirror them, others want you to be unashamedly unique, some want someone to argue with, some are painfully quiet but are happy with anything you give them, some are irritated with everyone by default, etc.
The only thing to know in the real world is acceptance and having an open mind about how to interact. The most social of folks love learning new people. It's not easy for them either, but they enjoy the challenge.
Thinking about rules, having expectations, and generally just being inflexible is a one-way ticket to needing to "manage your emotions". Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and... wait where'd they go? Aww :(
> but generally outside of that there are no such rules.
Like music, programming, painting, and many other complex human activities, there are and aren't rules.
When you're not a sophisticated practitioner, it's best to treat it like there are rules because those will give you the basic structure to get you from beginner to moderate. Eventually, when you are skilled enough, you learn that the rules are more like guidelines and begin to develop an intuition for when they should be bent or ignored.
It's important not to criticize anyone for where they are on their journey. If rules help someone, then telling them "there are no rules" is anti-helpful.
Choosing to ignore the rules of conversation and follow a purely intuitive approach doesn’t actually make you behave in a more “authentic” way, it is just a different way of behaving that is equally authentic.
Yes, you need to have an open mind. But we live in a society! The society has norms. Following the norms fosters trust; people are usually more comfortable when other people follow the norms. It’s a fast track to getting to the deeper, juicy bits of conversation. The norms can be intuitively learned if you are empathetic, but some of us are distracted or careless and it helps to have a reminder of what the norms are and what purposes they serve.
Smalltalk and politesse may be shallow but it’s the shallow parts of conversation where people learn to trust each other. The deeper parts of conversation follow.
I'm not saying to disrespect boundaries. I'm saying "norms" are different for each person. What we call "personality" could be described as an accumulation of errors in communicating norms resulting in some amount of uniqueness.
There's no choice but to use your intuition. Being "distracted or careless" and defaulting to a set of rules would probably offend most people and make them lose trust. The best conversations and fastest friendships I've ever had got started by skipping the small talk and making a correct guess about their interests or opinions. This is unsettling for some because it's remarkably close to prejudice, but it's just how people are.
> I'm saying "norms" are different for each person.
We’re using the word “norms” differently, then. Norms are what you use with people you don’t know. They’re based on cultural contexts. The rules of conversations are observations about how people tend to expect conversations to unfold in a particular culture and context.
You can approach the norms as descriptive or prescriptive. Both approaches are useful, but you’ll (IMO) get more mileage out of the descriptive approach. If you think of norms as prescriptive rules that you must follow in order to have a good conversation, then they won’t work very well. The same is true if you look at conversations on a smaller scale—we also have rules for grammar and vocabulary, and those rules can also be approached from a descriptive or prescriptive angle.
> There's no choice but to use your intuition.
This part is flat wrong. You do not have to use only intuition. Human nature is not somehow inexplicable, it is not somehow beyond our power to describe how good conversations work, or what friendship is, or what the nature of love is.
Our intuition about other people and our relationships is extremely powerful but it is not all-powerful. This is why people write in to relationship advice columns (or modern analogues like Reddit). People ask for help with their relationships because intuition is not enough. Some things need to be explained with words.
You do not need to follow these rules like a robot. They are just there to help you understand how to interact well with other people. The rules are not there so someone who is distracted or careless can more easily make better connections with other people; the rules are there as an explanation for how people who are paying attention will make connections.
Again, if you look closer you’ll also find that the grammar we use follows rules too. There are entire sections at the library full of books that explain the grammar of the English language. This isn’t really any different. The books can either explain the rules as directives that you must follow (the prescriptive approach), or explain the rules as observations about how native speakers write and speak English (the descriptive approach). Someone who’s fluent won’t need to think about the rules because they’re internalized, but they’ll still mostly follow the rules anyway. Someone who is clumsy and new at English will generally benefit from studying the rules.
There is an alternative: take the time and learn some emotional intelligence if it's not your strong suit. If you seriously think anyone likes your tendency to interrupt, one-up, complete disregard for their level of interest in the topic, and taking 100% of the oxygen without letting them speak, you're deluding yourself.
What an absurd way to start a comment about something that is essentially conversation 101. These are some of the most basic conversation skills imaginable, and if you think they warrant a "nope nope nope," someone should break it to you that you're probably a terrible conversation partner.
I always wonder what kinds of people benefit from writeups like this. Maybe I'm deceiving myself, but I feel as though I'm a pretty good conversationalist, despite not having much of an in-person social life in my formative years. The suggestions in articles like this one always seem pretty obvious to me.
Are there people out there who read this and realize "oh crap, I interrupt too much," or "huh, I should try to be more aware of the other person's interest level before infodumping on them"? My hunch is that people who might genuinely benefit from these suggestions are, to put it bluntly, generally too poorly socialized to even recognize that their behavior could use the adjustment.
A demographic I could see benefiting more from this kind of thing are the obsessive-optimizer class of folks who interact with others in a cynical, How-to-Win-Friends kind of way, and who see social interactions with fellow humans as something to be min-maxed. I'm sure those people are over-represented on orangesite, so this might be controversial, but I don't think that doing an intentional post-mortem on every social interaction you have is any way to live.
I would talk to people but felt like there was a barrier. The back and forth would fall dead. Conversations with me didn't flow as well as it did between other people.
At some point I came across advice like this -- specifically being told to ask more questions.
What a godsend.
I realized many of my conversations followed a simple pattern-- I'd be asked a question, I'd answer, maybe a tangent, conversation lulled, I'd feel asking a question would be rude, conversation ended.
I knew something was wrong in my conversations, but someone had to point at a specific thing to improve
There are both kinds.
You are on to something, in that those who 'need' this advice
are those for who it will be hardest to 'walk along the line'.
But still, yes. Those who are still stuck outside the door even after many years, are precisely those that for one reason or another, have no clue where to find the relevant keys.
A few days ago I saw someone lamenting, that their kid had learnt to use caps lock as shift (but never shift itself), and now the kid was reluctant to 'switch to using shift', since his mental mode had formed around caps lock.
People will get stuck in all kinds of local minima, and settle for 'well it's worked that way.. for me', no matter how strange it may appear to a passing observer.
Another angle is that asperger people (I have no idea what I'm 'allowed' to call us) seem to lack some of the normal brain 'wiring' that you use to implement the above.
To the extent we want to learn to ape/mimic those behaviours, yes, we need to be told about them :-/
People are also wired differently. My wife is neurotypical (?) in this regard, but our daughter is wired like me,
and if she's ever going to pick up on any of this,
someone is going to have to walk her through it - a lot.
Preferably at a point when she has realized she is missing a color or two, because currently none of this is intuitive to her. It's like explaining colors to a blind person.
> Imagine someone tells me a story about some crazy thing they did when they got drunk. As a non-drinker who can’t relate I might not find it that interesting, but would still try to say something positive like, “Wow, sounds crazy.” If they really want validation from the story, they might try to tack on statements to get a bigger reaction. “Yeah, it was wild!” or “My friends couldn’t believe it!”, to which there is no possible response other than a bigger reaction or awkward silence.
> This sort of behavior puts a huge burden on the listener because it makes them responsible for your emotional state. Their options are to deny you the emotional state you want, or to give it to you by lying.
What? This seems so off-base that it makes me question the rest of the advice in this guide. Sharing a story that you're passionate about isn't an immediate conversation killer. Nor does it "put a burden on the listener" to be responsible for your emotional state. Goodness! If there's an awkward silence, it's because the other person is politely inviting you to share another related story. A perfectly fine response to the above is "Oh yeah, that reminds me of the time when I [similarly crazy story]." Or, if you have no similarly crazy stories, share a story related in some other way.
> Ask Questions
While I'm soliloquizing, here's another thought. A lot of people say "ask questions" as a way to improve conversations, but miss a key bit of context. The real advice is: "Ask questions about what you're curious about." For the best conversation, you want to guide them to a place where you're both interested enough in the topic at hand that it basically runs on autopilot - where all the advice in this guide becomes meaningless because you both are doing it automatically because you're both engaged with the topic at hand. The best way to do that is to guide the conversation to a place of mutual interest.
A common failure mode I see is where people will ask questions about things they could care less about, then end up stranded in some awkward conversational territory that neither person cares about too much. It is nice to let the other person vent sometimes, but that isn't the only goal.
The problem wasn’t sharing the story. The problem was after sharing the story and getting a lukewarm response the story teller kept pressing for an enthusiastic response. Does that make more sense? Have I misread the article perhaps?
Vouched since I don't get the downvotes and want to respond.
The author sort of conflates two things in this section of the article; lack of interest and lack of knowledge.
The author's lack of interest in drinking adventures is actually their faux pas in my opinion if it's a story from a friend wanting to share a story. My friends have tons of interests I do not share, but I love to hear them talk about their interests because it's something new and they're my friends. I would not be as open to listening about beading or car mechanics from someone I'm not close to since I lack the knowledge to really participate and I just don't really care about someone I don't know very well and their hobbies unless they're a really engaging story teller (then I'm all ears)
The author's article in general sets a lot of weird social rules that they seem to prefer but this is not really some universal standard, it's just some social rules that the author abides by and is positioning as a good set of rules to follow.
Some of the advice is okay; if someone is visibly bored and not engaging, don't keep going on with the same topic, switch it up or move on.
Other advice is weird, like the positive disagreement; disagreement is fun! You have a chance to learn something new and as long as you aren't positioning your entire self worth on a position, probably it's a fun discussion. I disagree with people in a friendly way all the time, most importantly my friends, and we're better for it, not worse. We say how we feel and feel more.relaxed that when there is a disagreement, we understand it's normal and natural.
The article weirdly tries to position some nice advice, but I think it does more confusion than good.
I don’t really agree with this, if you’ve never noticed someone respond in the overly negative way to things you say as annoying and conversation-stopping, there is a good chance you don’t realize how other people perceive this. Sure, if you have close friends they can probably roll with the punches, but I bet they’d appreciate your conversation more if you disagreed to things in a positive way.
Maybe to give a more obvious example:
“Do you like to play any shooters”
“Nah, I think shooters are stupid.”
This halt’s the conversation and reads as “I think the thing you like is stupid, and also now I want you to respond to that.”
If the goal was to continue the conversation, the same feeling could have been expressed conversationally as…
“I’m not really a fan of shooters tbh, I’m more into puzzle games.”
This does 2 things — it expresses your disinterest in the topic presented without insulting your conversational partners preference and it follows up with an offer of similar topic that might be of interest to the other so that they could respond like…
“Oh, I haven’t seen any good puzzle games lately! You have any recommendations?”
I don’t really think there is an exception to this rule. The reason for this is that responding negatively should imply you find the others opinion unsavory:
“This driver is so terrible, they must be Asian.”
“That’s racist.”
The reason that the negative disagreement is used here is not to continue the conversation; rather, it’s to let the other person know that you think their opinion is wrong/bad. (I’m not saying this is a good way to go about this conversation either, I just think it’s more obvious what effect the negative disagreement has on conversation.)
> “I’m not really a fan of shooters tbh, I’m more into puzzle games.”
> “Oh, I haven’t seen any good puzzle games lately! You have any recommendations?”
This is not how a conversation goes. The typical response would be not to engage about puzzle games, but to tell you in blisteringly mind-numbing detail how great the shooter they're currently playing is and how they got out of a tight situation and blasted the opposition.
Because that's the conversation they want to have with you, and they won't be dissuaded.
That’s not how my conversations typically go. If they responded like that I would exit the conversation and not enter into conversations with them at a later date.
> Don’t Interrupt. In text based messaging, interrupting doesn’t really matter. You can have two or three topics going at once and jump back and forth between them. It may not be ideal, but it’s not rude and it doesn’t kill the conversation.
in text messaging, interrupting absolutely matters. Ever get sucked into a serious/argument type discussion in texts with an angry gf? you'll never get a change to explain yourself.
I can handle verbal interruptions no problem, but don't ask/accuse me in text and then not wait for a response and instead just walk on what I'm trying to say with something new.
And I can handle threading, but you have to make sure to reply to a specific text and reply to the reply, and most people have no concept of what it takes to maintain a thread, no theory of mind as to what the other person is responding/trying to say
and as a side point, students giving teachers the finger because of covid? no, that is not a thing.
> Ever get sucked into a serious/argument type discussion in texts with an angry gf? you'll never get a change to explain yourself.
I learned over time that if you are ever in a relationship where you are put on the defensive and need to explain yourself, that’s probably a relationship that you shouldn’t be in.
100%. Took me a very long time to learn this, but if your partner does not assume good intent, by default, and give you a chance to explain yourself (and vice versa), you’re in an abusive relationship and should get out.
I’ve been in it, and it was awful and destroyed me for many years, and I couldn’t be happier to have found someone who treats me with respect now.
> The worst conversations are those where both parties are waiting their turn to talk, saying as much as they can before getting interrupted, and then being forced to listen to the other.
I feel like this is a west coast US mentality. I don't mind people interrupting me, and think it's pretty typical from the east coast of the US.
It's not covid. Gens Y,Z and beyond are much smaller than any before them. They are a minority and they know that cooperation won't get them far, which is why they tend to be such lone wolves. I doubt shaming them will change them
I find that shaming harms relationship and often the other person. If the other person is unharmed, they'll likely be defensive. Either way, the attempt comes at significant cost.
That someone found it valuable to write an article for software engineers describing common sense that people usually figure out in their teenage years is interesting, as it is perpetuating the association of software engineering with autism.
Regardless, the problem is that autists are not able to read others well and gauge whether they are indeed interested in what they're saying (especially since it's polite for the other party to feign interest), nor do they realize that others may not be as excited about a very specialized topic they took a liking to.
For example, most people will say they like coffee. For some it means they like to experiment with different grind sizes and flow rates to extract the most floral notes out of certain Arabica cultivars when brewing espresso, but for many it will mean they enjoy the lifestyle of going to Starbucks and ordering a Latte with sweeteners, and have no knowledge nor even any interest in what coffee is and how it is cultivated, harvested, roasted or brewed. Autists would immediately assume the former and fail to pick up on the fact they're facing the later scenario.
Ironic that you would make such a sweeping assumption about the audience based on the article.
Would you say the same of `Make Friends and Influence People`? That it's written for autistic people who didn't learn common sense during adolescence like all of the other well-adjusted people (you)?
> That someone found it valuable to write an article for software engineers describing common sense that people usually figure out in their teenage years is interesting, as it is perpetuating the association of software engineering with autism.
Unless I'm missing something the article doesn't mention software engineering at all. Sure it's shared here on HN, but I don't see anything in the article that assumes the audience is a specific kind of technical reader.
As you mention "common sense that people usually figure out in their teenage years" I suggest you re-read the first few paragraphs where they specifically talk about incoming High School students lacking basic social skills.
While I generally don't like lists describing how people "should behave" to be more appropriate, because being social is such a nuanced thing and people are widely different, I disagree with you that this perpetuates any autistic association. No matter how skilled you are in soft skills, a new perspective can help you improve those skills. Most of the points on this list are common sense but most folks have probably never put these ideas into words, which is the value this blog post is bringing. A lot of non-autistic people lack social skills.
In my experience, many people wanted to be friends with me after a talk. I don't know why, but my guess was, most other people they talked to weren't good with conversations.
I find that a lot of people aren't used to changing their mind. For these people, conversation is to convince others rather than engage in exchanging and synthesis of ideas. To take this further, in general people are very attached to their own ideas, and if presented with viewpoints contrary to them, will fight as though backed into a corner. I think this comes from attaching their ego to their opinion, so if they're wrong, then they're "worse" of a person, so they really don't want to be wrong. Perhaps it's also a form of sunk cost fallacy.
Part of "gauging the conversation" is to understand if your conversation partners are in such a mode - and if so, then to adjust appropriately.