This resonated fairly well with me, but I have some thoughts.
1. The archetypical 'weaver' conversation is introduced as the exchange of apparently disconnected facts, with each as an invitation for an interlocutor to add a fact that they perceive as connected to the previous one. However, if you replace facts with scandalous stories, you get the structure of gossip. The purpose of a gossip conversation is not necessarily to communicate information, but to strengthen the social bonds between interlocutors.
2. The 'Peak Weaver' conversation could do with a little more commentary. Not being familiar with any of the references quoted, I can't discern the structure of this conversation: how does each quote follow from its predecessor?
3. I can only recall one such 'Peak Weaver' conversation in my life, but at the time, I felt it was more of a game to say as much as possible as obscurely as possible. However, we did have an audience at the time, which may have affected the dynamic.
4. This entire passage could very well be describing me:
> I have a theory about Weaver communication and the specific ways that some brains are configured. Weavers tend to be good at memorizing things that resonate with them, like song lyrics, lines from movies or books (sometimes even whole movies), and other large pieces of information.
The author and his daughter seem to have a humanities bias. As someone with a hard sciences bias, I can easily memorise amusing anecdotes, but also the behaviour of complex systems. When I was a teacher, my colleagues expressed genuine concern of the but-you-can't-do-that variety about my ability to speak for 10 minutes about something without notes.
> My daughter is definitely a Weaver. Others have remarked on her memory and how with each person she knows, she will remember little “things” they had as points of interaction that were in some way meaningful. She remembers and brings up things from the past, and I know the response she’s hoping for. She wants them to build on those moments of connection and weave a tapestry of relatedness together.
For me, this is often about things and ideas rather than moments. Perhaps I've learnt from interactions with others that you have to have a point to these sorts of reminiscences.
> This doesn’t always pan out for her, though, as others don’t always– or even usually– remember the moment she’s referencing. When I tell them, “Remember two years ago, that time you were throwing rocks in the creek, and you said ‘splash’ with a funny voice and both kept repeating it and laughing at each other?” They think I’m crazy for imagining that a 4.5-year-old could remember something from two years ago or could be referencing that in a conversation years later.
> about my ability to speak for 10 minutes about something without notes.
I'm not sure how common this sentiment is, but I would feel extraordinarily uncomfortable -to the point of feeling a bit like a fraud - if I were to speak about something continuously for 10 minutes (at a high degree of entropy, rather than just taking glancing stabs at the same observation from multiple angles) _unless_ I could do it without notes. If I could not do so I don't think I would even attempt to participate in a conversation on that subject, feeling as though I had nothing useful to contribute to the conversation.
I've often been able to speak for 15 minutes, up to 2 hours, on topics without repeating information. It was usually in a teaching or on-boarding context. The people were engaged, nodding, laughing, taking notes...
I simply knew the subject and its adjacencies inside out and backward.
Ten minutes, for a subject you care about, seems trivial.
I'm not sure I was clear, or if the manner in which I was attempting to frame my response using the context of the parent post worked the way I thought it would.
But what I mean is that 10 minutes would be perhaps the approximate boundary where I feel comfortable holding the floor engaging in curious but uninformed speculation, and the sense of fraud that I am possibly wasting everyone's time by continuing to speculate begins to encroach.
If I care about a subject enough I think like most people I don't have problem holding forth on it, free of supporting notes, for 2 or 3 hours if circumstances (and the extent of my command of the material, and the patience of my audience) would allow.
Regarding gossip -- I think these are not the same structure. While gossip will start by sharing a story, the way it strengthens social bonds, and the reason it can be so hurtful, is that it centers on a shared reaction. "We're both condescending and amused by this embarrassing story about someone else! We're very similar in our reaction so our bond is deepening!" The same can happen in a positive way, like when two people gush at each other in appreciation of something they've discovered they both enjoy. In particular, it's not just sharing updates about 3rd parties in a neutral way and without knowledge of whether the other person is has the same evaluative view. Sharing such an update with a person whom you know to have a very different view of the subject than you do is generally going to feel like a different kind of social interaction.
1. The archetypical 'weaver' conversation is introduced as the exchange of apparently disconnected facts, with each as an invitation for an interlocutor to add a fact that they perceive as connected to the previous one. However, if you replace facts with scandalous stories, you get the structure of gossip. The purpose of a gossip conversation is not necessarily to communicate information, but to strengthen the social bonds between interlocutors.
2. The 'Peak Weaver' conversation could do with a little more commentary. Not being familiar with any of the references quoted, I can't discern the structure of this conversation: how does each quote follow from its predecessor?
3. I can only recall one such 'Peak Weaver' conversation in my life, but at the time, I felt it was more of a game to say as much as possible as obscurely as possible. However, we did have an audience at the time, which may have affected the dynamic.
4. This entire passage could very well be describing me:
> I have a theory about Weaver communication and the specific ways that some brains are configured. Weavers tend to be good at memorizing things that resonate with them, like song lyrics, lines from movies or books (sometimes even whole movies), and other large pieces of information.
The author and his daughter seem to have a humanities bias. As someone with a hard sciences bias, I can easily memorise amusing anecdotes, but also the behaviour of complex systems. When I was a teacher, my colleagues expressed genuine concern of the but-you-can't-do-that variety about my ability to speak for 10 minutes about something without notes.
> My daughter is definitely a Weaver. Others have remarked on her memory and how with each person she knows, she will remember little “things” they had as points of interaction that were in some way meaningful. She remembers and brings up things from the past, and I know the response she’s hoping for. She wants them to build on those moments of connection and weave a tapestry of relatedness together.
For me, this is often about things and ideas rather than moments. Perhaps I've learnt from interactions with others that you have to have a point to these sorts of reminiscences.
> This doesn’t always pan out for her, though, as others don’t always– or even usually– remember the moment she’s referencing. When I tell them, “Remember two years ago, that time you were throwing rocks in the creek, and you said ‘splash’ with a funny voice and both kept repeating it and laughing at each other?” They think I’m crazy for imagining that a 4.5-year-old could remember something from two years ago or could be referencing that in a conversation years later.