33 ms·

Good conversations have lots of doorknobs

585 points by worldvoyageur 4y ago

DawnQFunk3 4y ago
jackconsidine 4y ago
I enjoyed this read. I'm typically an interviewer in conversations and assumed that was the less abrasive way to be. Just the other day though, I realized that it's probably preferable for a conversation partner to be given the option to comment on an inviting declaration than to be forced to answer a question.
- zwkrt 4y ago
  True. A date with an interviewer can be flattering if they are engaged in your answers, but interviewing is also a subtle way to control the flow of information and remain private.
uwagar 4y ago
i prefer love handles.
- ReactiveJelly 4y ago
  You might need Monty Hall to open a lot of doors before you can find those
gkoberger 4y ago
This is so completely off topic, but if the idea of an improv musical about Spiderman's dating life sounds up your alley, you should check out this episode of Off Book: The Improvised Musical. The premise is Spiderman + MJ in couples therapy, and it's phenomenal. https://podcasts.apple.com/my/podcast/marvel-sing-ematic-universe-part-4-crack-crack-boom/id1260742439?i=1000540478848&l=ms https://podcasts.apple.com/my/podcast/marvel-sing-ematic-uni...
- saghm 4y ago
  Logistically, how does the instrumental part of the music get improvised on the spot in a way that the actors can sing along? Do they have preexisting music determined that the actors can improvise lyrics to? Or do they just sing without musical backing and then music gets recorded to match it later?
  - a9h74j 4y ago
    Saw musical improve live in the 1990s. One keyboardist live to accompany. Not a musician so I can't say about expected chord changes vs. transposition, etc.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    Did you ever see the David Letterman show? Paul Schaffer, the keyboardist and bandleader on the show is a great example of that. Before Letterman, he played piano on Saturday Night Live. Paul was an improviser, musically and comedically. Some word or concept Dave was riffing on would catch something in Paul and out would come related (often hilarious) music. On SNL, he and Bill Murray did a great lounge pianist/singer duo, playing off one another and obviously not entirely rehearsed. I'll let you dig for links to that stuff. The digging is probably more fun than some presented example in this case.
  - gkoberger 4y ago
    In this particular podcast, they have a three-piece band they work with every episode (guitar, drums and piano). The music is improvised just like the singing. Usually either the piano or guitar will start, the other two will join in. And then they follow each other. They definitely rely on musical tropes they all know, for example "rock song" or "broadway song". But overall, it's a combination of them all being insanely talented, having worked together a lot, and once in a while cue-ing each other. Here's an episode of another podcast they guested on (Switched On Pop) where they walk through their process (AND do an improv musical at the same time): https://switchedonpop.com/episodes/switched-off-book-with-jess-mckenna-and-zach-reino https://switchedonpop.com/episodes/switched-off-book-with-je... Also, if you want a quick video of them doing it, here's an example with them, the band, and Jason Mantzoukas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCI0gD_K27M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCI0gD_K27M
a9h74j 4y ago
This article has a bit more information and terminology. There used to be advice around "progressive disclosure" in conversation. You say something e.g. very-slightly-risky to disclose, while also asking e.g. a less-risky-to-answer question. The other person then has a choice of gradient toward more or less disclosure or inquiry, and whether to answer or ask more.
- notRobot 4y ago
  > This article has a bit more information and terminology. I may be misreading this, but did you mean to link to something?
  - a9h74j 4y ago
    I meant OP (if I understand that usage), but worded it poorly. Since you ask, found this link: http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/sustaining/progressive_disclosure.htm http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/sustaining/...
randallsquared 4y ago
This has a lot of good insight, but I was struck by how differently I experience > “What’s up?” is one of the most dreadful texts to get; it’s short for “Hello, I’d like you to entertain me now.” The typical response to "What's up?" from myself and, uh, nearly everyone I know, is some variation on "Not much! What's up with you?" or "[trivial recent happening, quickly related] So, what's been going on with you?" ...and that's because "What's up?" is nearly universally a way to prompt someone to ask you that question back, so you can tell them about the thing you really want to say without it seeming sudden or forced.
- notRobot 4y ago
  When I was younger and more pretentious I used to get annoyed at friends for answering "what's up?" with "nothing much" because in my head by asking that I was obviously fishing for conversation material so you should just bring up something that we can talk about. Something that happened recently or something that you heard about or something you remembered or something you are looking forward to, just... anything.
  - guelo 4y ago
    Well why are you putting it on them to come up with something to talk about? "Not much, sup with you?" puts it back on you.
    - notRobot 4y ago
      I used to only ask "what's up?" after I'd exhausted everything I had to talk about usually. I used to think a lot about dynamics like these lmao.
  - kebman 4y ago
    What's up? I'm playing with LEGO®. I'm eating sushi. You? I'm in spaaaaaaceeeee but I'm separated from my module!!! Halp!
  - noman-land 4y ago
    It seems some people might be more comfortable sitting in silence and so they don't feel the need to talk about _anything_ as a way to break it. Maybe it's an introvert/extrovert thing.
tunesmith 4y ago
This is really cool but I think I need more examples of how to create good doorknobs. wait, did I just create one?
- tcgv 4y ago
  Second that! I took a while to grasp the concept of "social doorknobs" while reading this text. I think it boils down to something people can use to open up conversational pathways and keep the conversation flowing.
  - myself248 4y ago
    While reading this, I kept drawing parallels to how I like to teach. (I'm not a professional teacher, but I volunteer at a makerspace and nothing is more fun than watching someone grasp a new concept and use it to actually make something.) I tend to think that, in general, there's very little new under the sun, so most students are already equipped with analogies that will help them understand what I'm teaching. That is, if I can just figure out what they're familiar with and draw the appropriate parallels. Teaching, then, becomes an exercise in learning my student and trying to express analogies that they can grab onto. Which means sometimes throwing out a slow-ball so they have an easy hit, and seeing which metaphor they use to hit it with, which then gives me some information about how to proceed.
prashnts 4y ago
A good read, thanks. I like the description of take/give sides and it's well portrayed. I wondered if there's any take home message here for salvaging a give-take conversation. I'd crudely deduct that being takers/givers in a conversation may be a function of cultural, linguistic, social, and intellectual dimensions coupled with personal, emotional, and ambient states a person is in. As such there's really very little just one party can do to have a better conversation flowing on their own. So apart from affordance, I think participation seems to also be a key factor and can be seen as "push or pull or slide" aspect of that doorknob.
- Etheryte 4y ago
  I wouldn't say the traits are universal, as in someone is always a giver or someone is always a taker, but rather it depends heavily on context. For example, I've noticed I'm mostly a giver when I'm talking to my parents, because I'm very interested in hearing what they have to say while they're still around, whereas I'm often a taker around my friends. The answer to your question then would be to be flexible and match your conversation partner. If you find your partner to be a giver, you too can try to give to meet them halfway, similarly for the other option.
- fishtoaster 4y ago
  For me, I grew up a Taker. I'm not sure if this was a cultural thing (my parents are takers), a regional thing (western NY), or a me-being-an-unaware-dork thing (I was). But now I find myself surrounded by Givers. I'm not sure if this is a cultural thing (SF tech scene), a regional thing (west coast), or a my-social-circle thing. So I had to learn to be a giver to make any friends. What's interesting is that my old friends are mostly Takers. I imagine this was a selection bias: givers got bored of talking to me quickly! I get together with some old friends from college once or twice a year and every time it's a bit jarring for the first hour as I have to switch to all-take mode. Anyway, the point being that I think you can learn to switch, and to blend between the two modes. In fact, I think being able to do so is generally good and helpful.
  - ajkjk 4y ago
    I think it's very much a west-coast / upper-middle-class liberal thing. I noticed it dramatically when I moved to the west coast (Seattle, in my case). People think it's being polite and decent but to me it just seems boring. Anecdotally I think 'taker'-ness is associated with immigrant cultures (Jewish and Italian come to mind, but I think it includes others also).
takanori 4y ago
Great read. The pandemic forced my close friends to go from in person drinks to zooms but then quickly transitioned to async voice messages. The by product of this is everyone gets a chance to be a giver and taker without having take the spotlight immediately. Sometimes our conversations last weeks as someone comes in and reignites debate after bringing a new point. It’s all async. Curious is anyone else has found similar success with voice messaging as a medium.
- SamPatt 4y ago
  I have. It's my favorite way to keep up with people. The only issue is that people can't always listen, or speak, so they need to either just wait to reply, or you both need to switch to text often. We tend to learn each other's schedules and then send messages based on availability.
- myself248 4y ago
  When I was a little kid, I remember my dad and uncle would mail cassette tapes back and forth, instead of writing letters. Dad would gleefully find one in the mail, unwrap it, open a beer, and sit down with his headphones on and notepad in hand. Once in a while he'd actually pause the playback while jotting notes, but mostly the things he wanted to respond to only needed a scribbled word or two as a prompt for later. Having finished the tape, he'd walk around for a minute to collect his thoughts, grab a second beer but not open it, rewind the tape, press Record, wait a count of 5 for the leader to be past the record head, then crack that beer right into the microphone -- every tape started with that sound -- and begin to hold forth.
  - JudsonStevens 4y ago
    That is a fantastic story, thanks for sharing. Really brings me back to long form letters and considered conversations.
  - takanori 4y ago
    This is a great story. I think there is something to listening to one’s voice vs reading letters
flyaway123 4y ago
This provides a great mental model to build awareness / be more sensitive for the social cues during a conversation. > There is no known cure for egocentrism; the condition appears to be congenital. Which is why I can't see why this is suggested as an independent issue that should simply be accepted, without additional reference. The lack of doorknobs, if you will.
xg15 4y ago
> That’s why when psychologists want to jump-start friendship in the lab ...wait, we can do what now?
- kentlyons 4y ago
  Yes. And the author provides both a cite for an academic publication as well as one from popular media. (And it's not exactly new either - the paper was published in 97).
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    TIL we also can jump-start outgroup formation in the lab: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_group_paradigm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_group_paradigm (or should I have learned it much earlier? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#The_Sneetches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Storie... )
tcgv 4y ago
> We think people want to hear about exciting stuff we did without them (“I went to Budapest!”) when they actually are happier talking about mundane stuff we did together (“Remember when we got stuck in traffic driving to DC?”) Gonna keep that in mind!
- jstx1 4y ago
  On the flip-side, "remember when we..." becomes very boring if you're meeting someone that you aren't forming new memories with.
  - gitgud 4y ago
    True, if someone in the conversation wasn't at that event, it's very hard for them to care, unless there's a punchline or its somehow actually related to them...
  - havblue 4y ago
    As a teenager I noticed some people used it to enforce in-group status. If you were there, you can talk to them, if you weren't, go talk to someone else.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  Personally, I want to hear about exciting stuff that my friend did and tell them about the exciting stuff that happened to me (though not much of that has happened recently.. can just stay relatively quiet).
- lupire 4y ago
  SNL / Chris Farley satirized that: https://ew.com/tv/saturday-night-live-the-chris-farley-show/ https://ew.com/tv/saturday-night-live-the-chris-farley-show/
Rayhem 4y ago
> Conversational affordances are things like digressions and confessions and bold claims that beg for a rejoinder. Isn't that just giving? I mean, sure, I guess you can say "That movie sucked and anybody who liked it can fight me!" and then not give a shit about what anyone else says which probably isn't giving, but putting that out there and watching for who responds to what and then enticing them with more of that is the essence of giving (and conversation).
- bckr 4y ago
  TFA uses "giving" and "taking" in an idiosyncratic way. Specifically, in terms of giving/taking the stage. That's the purpose of the story about improv at the top.
  - myself248 4y ago
    Yeah. This was the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around while reading. Even after the terms were put in context, it was Hard Work to continue forcing them into my mind. Eventually I just gave up on that and realized that the rest of the point was thoroughly useful without those terms.
andreyk 4y ago
Great article! I've personally been pretty self aware with how often I "create doorknobs" in conversations, though I like to think of it in terms of "passing the ball" in soccer or basketball. If you do all the passing and never get the ball passed to you, the "game" of conversation is no fun -and it should be fun!
- _blu 4y ago
  only givers think that way. Sometimes it's not best to pass the ball but take a shot
russellbeattie 4y ago
I've recently learned that I have Avoidant Personality Disorder. I spend most of a conversation looking for ways to end it quickly before I make some sort of social faux pas that I'll obsess about for the rest of my life. (I still replay moments from 30 years ago in my head. Like I said, it's a disorder). The better a conversation is going, the faster I want it to end. Any exit I see, I take it.
- wnolens 4y ago
  I'm sorry. Is there anyone you don't feel like that around?
  - russellbeattie 4y ago
    I wish! At least I know now my type of crazy isn't unique. That actually helps a lot and lets me recognize when I'm being that way and why. Thanks for asking!
- alliao 4y ago
  are online conversations better, as you get to exit whenever you like
- Mandatum 4y ago
  Sounds like me when anxiety is at a 10. I still replay moments for a decade ago.
krupan 4y ago
Chastising givers who resent takers, the author says it's "..easy to forget how lovely it feels when you don’t want the spotlight and a taker lets you recline on the mezzanine while they fill the stage." As a giver, I'd usually rather not be stuck in the "conversation" (more like, speech) that the taker is dominating.
- tacitusarc 4y ago
  Sometimes it’s unavoidable though. During various social obligations which require your presence it can be nice to have takers around to keep things going.
- ajkjk 4y ago
  The taker is probably used to talking to other takers, where each person taking time to say stuff is normal. Talking to a giver, using this terminology, can be really disorienting: it's like trying to make conversation with a person who's not participating and is just being polite.
i_like_waiting 4y ago
I think good conversation is lot about confidence of people involved. I had terrible conversations (or at least their attempts) where people threw at me questions so quickly I haven't had chance to plant some doorknobs. Many of encounters where I had to resist their "and you?" questions, as I saw an opportunity to expand on what they were saying. Which I find weird because then I am completely terrible at group conversations (as there is already taker & giver, so I just go to role of listener)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rwilson4 4y ago
Really interesting. I've always wished there was a formula to be better at conversations. I've never been good at it! I've tried to find books but the ones I've found come off as manipulative, not as a cure for social awkwardness! Doorknobs are a great mental model!
- lupire 4y ago
  The formula is C2H5OH
spawarotti 4y ago
This article reminds me of "The Church of Interruption", the best short article I ever read about communication styles: https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
- wallflower 4y ago
  Wow, thanks for posting that. I am learning more about not interrupting now.
- _tom_ 4y ago
  Another good article on differing communication styles is the ask vs guess post. https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-between-FU-and-Welcome#830421 https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-bet...
- chrisweekly 4y ago
  Wow, thanks, that post is brilliant, funny, and useful. Bookmarked.
- mherdeg 4y ago
  Why do things so often break down so intelligibly into these 2x2 matrices? Like the "urgent vs important" one? Is there a word for this phenomenon? Are people primed / wired to more readily understand things when they're explained in a "two tribes" way?
  - metalrain 4y ago
    I think you could choose many other two properties and they would still make sense. We all know it's simplification and it's easy to read so it looks intelligent, albeit incomplete. For example I make 2x2 matrix of growing roses where axis are: amount of water and amount of sunlight, seems reasonable but we know that there are many other variables at play: soil, atmosphere, solar cycle, temperature, fungal growth etc. I could make NxM matrix of all known variables, but it would be quite intimidating.
- 4y ago
avivo 4y ago
> It turns out that we like people the best when they respond to us the fastest––so fast (mere milliseconds!) that they must be formulating their reply long before we finish our turn. This might be true; but looking into the linked study, it appears to be on Dartmouth students. This claim at least maybe culturally dependent.
- kieckerjan 4y ago
  There is this quip that psychology is really the study of freshman students. Probably because (at least where I live) students are required to participate in a number of psychological studies in their first year.
djmips 4y ago
I found the giver and taker nomenclature hard to keep straight.
- stu2b50 4y ago
  I had a hard time remembering which is which until I started to mentally append “stage” to it. Stage giver, stage taker - taking the stage, giving the stage. The author, given the context of improv, seems to have been implicitly using that as the metaphor the entire time but it didn’t stick to me until I thought about it more.
  - permo-w 4y ago
    after slight confusion, I read it as question giver/taker, but stage giver/taker makes more sense in context
  - djmips 4y ago
    Thanks. Great mnemonic!
- sriram_malhar 4y ago
  In the sense of Give the spotlight o another person, or Take the spotlight and hold on to it.
kordlessagain 4y ago
Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations, while takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations. When giver meets giver or taker meets taker, all is well. However, when giver meets taker, giver gives and taker takes, and giver gets resentful.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  I think good conversations require taking turns in the giving receiving roles. This is, I believe a prerequisite for a good friendship. And for good friends the turns could be weeks long rather than minutes. As you have proven to each other you care about each overs life already, so it can adjust to circumstances.
XCSme 4y ago
Nice read, seems a bit biased and over-simplified, but I really enjoyed it and learned new things.
sizzle 4y ago
This sounds like introversion (taker) vs extroversion (giver) Is this related to social comfort speaking with others?
- solarmist 4y ago
  never mind. I hadn’t gotten far enough in the article.
  - permo-w 4y ago
    I assume they read giver/taker as of information rather than of questions. that’s how I read it at first, and I feel it does make more sense
- stu2b50 4y ago
  I don't think that correspondance really works. For one, it is a bit of a conflation between introversion/extroversion and being outspoken vs being quiet, where what *version you are is more about natural proclivities. That is to say, one can be fine with, and quite good at, something they don't enjoy (and vice versa - there are many people who really enjoy constant social interaction but are quite bad at it!). But even within outspoken/quiet, you can easily see those attributes in different takers and givers. For instance, a circumstance where someone is constantly asking questions, and getting short, blunt answers seems like an outspoken giver overpowering a quiet taker. On the other side, someone who blabs incessantly while the other party meekly subsides to just asking questions occasionally is an outspoken taker, taking the stage and never letting go of it.
- neumann 4y ago
  I think other way around?
randcraw 4y ago
I think the metaphor of doorknobs doesn't really capture what it is that motivates people to converse. To my mind's eye, an door that's ajar is more compelling since it provides a glimpse of myriad untold imaginings that may lie within. Ideally, the not-yet-engaged conversant might be tempted to peek behind this door to speak to something personally of interest to them, regardless of what was said by whomever opened it. I think the trick is to suggest several possible openings such that one manages to suck them in. A topic I find never fails to engage is a recent movie or book, liked or hated. Why so? Did the techniques of the author or director or cast or production resonate or miss the mark? how would they have changed the plot, the actors, the setting, or the ending? How did this story compare to others they liked more? And so on… There's nothing magic about movies or books, but everyone has opinions about storytelling and usually feels free to discuss it, since involvement and criticism are pretty much the purpose of fiction in the first place. That's one open door that will usually entice a room of strangers to break the silence.
sriram_malhar 4y ago
I like this definition of give (the spotlight) vs take (the spotlight). This works in an improv setting where all participants have something to say. I have trouble with the other scenario -- possibly more common -- where the participants are reluctant to say much. I used to define these as takers ... they take energy from the giver (the initiator of the conversation); the giver needs to constantly re-up the energy.
Nimitz14 4y ago
Excellent article! Feel like Ive had a few of these realizations the hard way (i used to often, still sometimes do, just text someone a Q without offering something at the same time). Wish I had learned these lessons earlier. The point how different 1on1 and group conversations are is a great one, without someone there being open to get ridiculed noone talks.
CarnunMP 4y ago
Definite overlap with another essay on the front page right now, The Church of Interruption: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023
MacroChip 4y ago
I was confused for a few sentences when the giver/taker terms were used without explicit definition. I assumed they were used to denote information givers/takers but the definition is more like spotlight giver/takers

585 points by worldvoyageur 4y ago

I enjoyed this read. I'm typically an interviewer in conversations and assumed that was the less abrasive way to be. Just the other day though, I realized that it's probably preferable for a conversation partner to be given the option to comment on an inviting declaration than to be forced to answer a question.

zwkrt 4y ago
True. A date with an interviewer can be flattering if they are engaged in your answers, but interviewing is also a subtle way to control the flow of information and remain private.

uwagar 4y ago

i prefer love handles.

ReactiveJelly 4y ago
You might need Monty Hall to open a lot of doors before you can find those

gkoberger 4y ago

This is so completely off topic, but if the idea of an improv musical about Spiderman's dating life sounds up your alley, you should check out this episode of Off Book: The Improvised Musical. The premise is Spiderman + MJ in couples therapy, and it's phenomenal. https://podcasts.apple.com/my/podcast/marvel-sing-ematic-universe-part-4-crack-crack-boom/id1260742439?i=1000540478848&l=ms https://podcasts.apple.com/my/podcast/marvel-sing-ematic-uni...

saghm 4y ago
Logistically, how does the instrumental part of the music get improvised on the spot in a way that the actors can sing along? Do they have preexisting music determined that the actors can improvise lyrics to? Or do they just sing without musical backing and then music gets recorded to match it later?
- a9h74j 4y ago
  Saw musical improve live in the 1990s. One keyboardist live to accompany. Not a musician so I can't say about expected chord changes vs. transposition, etc.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Did you ever see the David Letterman show? Paul Schaffer, the keyboardist and bandleader on the show is a great example of that. Before Letterman, he played piano on Saturday Night Live. Paul was an improviser, musically and comedically. Some word or concept Dave was riffing on would catch something in Paul and out would come related (often hilarious) music. On SNL, he and Bill Murray did a great lounge pianist/singer duo, playing off one another and obviously not entirely rehearsed. I'll let you dig for links to that stuff. The digging is probably more fun than some presented example in this case.
- gkoberger 4y ago
  In this particular podcast, they have a three-piece band they work with every episode (guitar, drums and piano). The music is improvised just like the singing. Usually either the piano or guitar will start, the other two will join in. And then they follow each other. They definitely rely on musical tropes they all know, for example "rock song" or "broadway song". But overall, it's a combination of them all being insanely talented, having worked together a lot, and once in a while cue-ing each other. Here's an episode of another podcast they guested on (Switched On Pop) where they walk through their process (AND do an improv musical at the same time): https://switchedonpop.com/episodes/switched-off-book-with-jess-mckenna-and-zach-reino https://switchedonpop.com/episodes/switched-off-book-with-je... Also, if you want a quick video of them doing it, here's an example with them, the band, and Jason Mantzoukas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCI0gD_K27M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCI0gD_K27M

a9h74j 4y ago

This article has a bit more information and terminology. There used to be advice around "progressive disclosure" in conversation. You say something e.g. very-slightly-risky to disclose, while also asking e.g. a less-risky-to-answer question. The other person then has a choice of gradient toward more or less disclosure or inquiry, and whether to answer or ask more.

notRobot 4y ago
> This article has a bit more information and terminology. I may be misreading this, but did you mean to link to something?
- a9h74j 4y ago
  I meant OP (if I understand that usage), but worded it poorly. Since you ask, found this link: http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/sustaining/progressive_disclosure.htm http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/sustaining/...

randallsquared 4y ago

This has a lot of good insight, but I was struck by how differently I experience > “What’s up?” is one of the most dreadful texts to get; it’s short for “Hello, I’d like you to entertain me now.” The typical response to "What's up?" from myself and, uh, nearly everyone I know, is some variation on "Not much! What's up with you?" or "[trivial recent happening, quickly related] So, what's been going on with you?" ...and that's because "What's up?" is nearly universally a way to prompt someone to ask you that question back, so you can tell them about the thing you really want to say without it seeming sudden or forced.

notRobot 4y ago
When I was younger and more pretentious I used to get annoyed at friends for answering "what's up?" with "nothing much" because in my head by asking that I was obviously fishing for conversation material so you should just bring up something that we can talk about. Something that happened recently or something that you heard about or something you remembered or something you are looking forward to, just... anything.
- guelo 4y ago
  Well why are you putting it on them to come up with something to talk about? "Not much, sup with you?" puts it back on you.
  - notRobot 4y ago
    I used to only ask "what's up?" after I'd exhausted everything I had to talk about usually. I used to think a lot about dynamics like these lmao.
- kebman 4y ago
  What's up? I'm playing with LEGO®. I'm eating sushi. You? I'm in spaaaaaaceeeee but I'm separated from my module!!! Halp!
- noman-land 4y ago
  It seems some people might be more comfortable sitting in silence and so they don't feel the need to talk about _anything_ as a way to break it. Maybe it's an introvert/extrovert thing.

tunesmith 4y ago

This is really cool but I think I need more examples of how to create good doorknobs. wait, did I just create one?

tcgv 4y ago
Second that! I took a while to grasp the concept of "social doorknobs" while reading this text. I think it boils down to something people can use to open up conversational pathways and keep the conversation flowing.
- myself248 4y ago
  While reading this, I kept drawing parallels to how I like to teach. (I'm not a professional teacher, but I volunteer at a makerspace and nothing is more fun than watching someone grasp a new concept and use it to actually make something.) I tend to think that, in general, there's very little new under the sun, so most students are already equipped with analogies that will help them understand what I'm teaching. That is, if I can just figure out what they're familiar with and draw the appropriate parallels. Teaching, then, becomes an exercise in learning my student and trying to express analogies that they can grab onto. Which means sometimes throwing out a slow-ball so they have an easy hit, and seeing which metaphor they use to hit it with, which then gives me some information about how to proceed.

prashnts 4y ago

A good read, thanks. I like the description of take/give sides and it's well portrayed. I wondered if there's any take home message here for salvaging a give-take conversation. I'd crudely deduct that being takers/givers in a conversation may be a function of cultural, linguistic, social, and intellectual dimensions coupled with personal, emotional, and ambient states a person is in. As such there's really very little just one party can do to have a better conversation flowing on their own. So apart from affordance, I think participation seems to also be a key factor and can be seen as "push or pull or slide" aspect of that doorknob.

Etheryte 4y ago
I wouldn't say the traits are universal, as in someone is always a giver or someone is always a taker, but rather it depends heavily on context. For example, I've noticed I'm mostly a giver when I'm talking to my parents, because I'm very interested in hearing what they have to say while they're still around, whereas I'm often a taker around my friends. The answer to your question then would be to be flexible and match your conversation partner. If you find your partner to be a giver, you too can try to give to meet them halfway, similarly for the other option.
fishtoaster 4y ago
For me, I grew up a Taker. I'm not sure if this was a cultural thing (my parents are takers), a regional thing (western NY), or a me-being-an-unaware-dork thing (I was). But now I find myself surrounded by Givers. I'm not sure if this is a cultural thing (SF tech scene), a regional thing (west coast), or a my-social-circle thing. So I had to learn to be a giver to make any friends. What's interesting is that my old friends are mostly Takers. I imagine this was a selection bias: givers got bored of talking to me quickly! I get together with some old friends from college once or twice a year and every time it's a bit jarring for the first hour as I have to switch to all-take mode. Anyway, the point being that I think you can learn to switch, and to blend between the two modes. In fact, I think being able to do so is generally good and helpful.
- ajkjk 4y ago
  I think it's very much a west-coast / upper-middle-class liberal thing. I noticed it dramatically when I moved to the west coast (Seattle, in my case). People think it's being polite and decent but to me it just seems boring. Anecdotally I think 'taker'-ness is associated with immigrant cultures (Jewish and Italian come to mind, but I think it includes others also).

takanori 4y ago

Great read. The pandemic forced my close friends to go from in person drinks to zooms but then quickly transitioned to async voice messages. The by product of this is everyone gets a chance to be a giver and taker without having take the spotlight immediately. Sometimes our conversations last weeks as someone comes in and reignites debate after bringing a new point. It’s all async. Curious is anyone else has found similar success with voice messaging as a medium.

SamPatt 4y ago
I have. It's my favorite way to keep up with people. The only issue is that people can't always listen, or speak, so they need to either just wait to reply, or you both need to switch to text often. We tend to learn each other's schedules and then send messages based on availability.
myself248 4y ago
When I was a little kid, I remember my dad and uncle would mail cassette tapes back and forth, instead of writing letters. Dad would gleefully find one in the mail, unwrap it, open a beer, and sit down with his headphones on and notepad in hand. Once in a while he'd actually pause the playback while jotting notes, but mostly the things he wanted to respond to only needed a scribbled word or two as a prompt for later. Having finished the tape, he'd walk around for a minute to collect his thoughts, grab a second beer but not open it, rewind the tape, press Record, wait a count of 5 for the leader to be past the record head, then crack that beer right into the microphone -- every tape started with that sound -- and begin to hold forth.
- JudsonStevens 4y ago
  That is a fantastic story, thanks for sharing. Really brings me back to long form letters and considered conversations.
- takanori 4y ago
  This is a great story. I think there is something to listening to one’s voice vs reading letters

flyaway123 4y ago

This provides a great mental model to build awareness / be more sensitive for the social cues during a conversation. > There is no known cure for egocentrism; the condition appears to be congenital. Which is why I can't see why this is suggested as an independent issue that should simply be accepted, without additional reference. The lack of doorknobs, if you will.

xg15 4y ago

> That’s why when psychologists want to jump-start friendship in the lab ...wait, we can do what now?

kentlyons 4y ago
Yes. And the author provides both a cite for an academic publication as well as one from popular media. (And it's not exactly new either - the paper was published in 97).
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  TIL we also can jump-start outgroup formation in the lab: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_group_paradigm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_group_paradigm (or should I have learned it much earlier? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#The_Sneetches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Storie... )

tcgv 4y ago

> We think people want to hear about exciting stuff we did without them (“I went to Budapest!”) when they actually are happier talking about mundane stuff we did together (“Remember when we got stuck in traffic driving to DC?”) Gonna keep that in mind!

jstx1 4y ago
On the flip-side, "remember when we..." becomes very boring if you're meeting someone that you aren't forming new memories with.
- gitgud 4y ago
  True, if someone in the conversation wasn't at that event, it's very hard for them to care, unless there's a punchline or its somehow actually related to them...
- havblue 4y ago
  As a teenager I noticed some people used it to enforce in-group status. If you were there, you can talk to them, if you weren't, go talk to someone else.
Aperocky 4y ago
Personally, I want to hear about exciting stuff that my friend did and tell them about the exciting stuff that happened to me (though not much of that has happened recently.. can just stay relatively quiet).
lupire 4y ago
SNL / Chris Farley satirized that: https://ew.com/tv/saturday-night-live-the-chris-farley-show/ https://ew.com/tv/saturday-night-live-the-chris-farley-show/

Rayhem 4y ago

> Conversational affordances are things like digressions and confessions and bold claims that beg for a rejoinder. Isn't that just giving? I mean, sure, I guess you can say "That movie sucked and anybody who liked it can fight me!" and then not give a shit about what anyone else says which probably isn't giving, but putting that out there and watching for who responds to what and then enticing them with more of that is the essence of giving (and conversation).

bckr 4y ago
TFA uses "giving" and "taking" in an idiosyncratic way. Specifically, in terms of giving/taking the stage. That's the purpose of the story about improv at the top.
- myself248 4y ago
  Yeah. This was the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around while reading. Even after the terms were put in context, it was Hard Work to continue forcing them into my mind. Eventually I just gave up on that and realized that the rest of the point was thoroughly useful without those terms.

andreyk 4y ago

Great article! I've personally been pretty self aware with how often I "create doorknobs" in conversations, though I like to think of it in terms of "passing the ball" in soccer or basketball. If you do all the passing and never get the ball passed to you, the "game" of conversation is no fun -and it should be fun!

_blu 4y ago
only givers think that way. Sometimes it's not best to pass the ball but take a shot

russellbeattie 4y ago

I've recently learned that I have Avoidant Personality Disorder. I spend most of a conversation looking for ways to end it quickly before I make some sort of social faux pas that I'll obsess about for the rest of my life. (I still replay moments from 30 years ago in my head. Like I said, it's a disorder). The better a conversation is going, the faster I want it to end. Any exit I see, I take it.

wnolens 4y ago
I'm sorry. Is there anyone you don't feel like that around?
- russellbeattie 4y ago
  I wish! At least I know now my type of crazy isn't unique. That actually helps a lot and lets me recognize when I'm being that way and why. Thanks for asking!
alliao 4y ago
are online conversations better, as you get to exit whenever you like
Mandatum 4y ago
Sounds like me when anxiety is at a 10. I still replay moments for a decade ago.

krupan 4y ago

Chastising givers who resent takers, the author says it's "..easy to forget how lovely it feels when you don’t want the spotlight and a taker lets you recline on the mezzanine while they fill the stage." As a giver, I'd usually rather not be stuck in the "conversation" (more like, speech) that the taker is dominating.

tacitusarc 4y ago
Sometimes it’s unavoidable though. During various social obligations which require your presence it can be nice to have takers around to keep things going.
ajkjk 4y ago
The taker is probably used to talking to other takers, where each person taking time to say stuff is normal. Talking to a giver, using this terminology, can be really disorienting: it's like trying to make conversation with a person who's not participating and is just being polite.

i_like_waiting 4y ago

I think good conversation is lot about confidence of people involved. I had terrible conversations (or at least their attempts) where people threw at me questions so quickly I haven't had chance to plant some doorknobs. Many of encounters where I had to resist their "and you?" questions, as I saw an opportunity to expand on what they were saying. Which I find weird because then I am completely terrible at group conversations (as there is already taker & giver, so I just go to role of listener)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rwilson4 4y ago

Really interesting. I've always wished there was a formula to be better at conversations. I've never been good at it! I've tried to find books but the ones I've found come off as manipulative, not as a cure for social awkwardness! Doorknobs are a great mental model!

lupire 4y ago
The formula is C2H5OH

spawarotti 4y ago

This article reminds me of "The Church of Interruption", the best short article I ever read about communication styles: https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html

wallflower 4y ago
Wow, thanks for posting that. I am learning more about not interrupting now.
_tom_ 4y ago
Another good article on differing communication styles is the ask vs guess post. https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-between-FU-and-Welcome#830421 https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-bet...
chrisweekly 4y ago
Wow, thanks, that post is brilliant, funny, and useful. Bookmarked.
mherdeg 4y ago
Why do things so often break down so intelligibly into these 2x2 matrices? Like the "urgent vs important" one? Is there a word for this phenomenon? Are people primed / wired to more readily understand things when they're explained in a "two tribes" way?
- metalrain 4y ago
  I think you could choose many other two properties and they would still make sense. We all know it's simplification and it's easy to read so it looks intelligent, albeit incomplete. For example I make 2x2 matrix of growing roses where axis are: amount of water and amount of sunlight, seems reasonable but we know that there are many other variables at play: soil, atmosphere, solar cycle, temperature, fungal growth etc. I could make NxM matrix of all known variables, but it would be quite intimidating.
4y ago

avivo 4y ago

> It turns out that we like people the best when they respond to us the fastest––so fast (mere milliseconds!) that they must be formulating their reply long before we finish our turn. This might be true; but looking into the linked study, it appears to be on Dartmouth students. This claim at least maybe culturally dependent.

kieckerjan 4y ago
There is this quip that psychology is really the study of freshman students. Probably because (at least where I live) students are required to participate in a number of psychological studies in their first year.

djmips 4y ago

I found the giver and taker nomenclature hard to keep straight.

stu2b50 4y ago
I had a hard time remembering which is which until I started to mentally append “stage” to it. Stage giver, stage taker - taking the stage, giving the stage. The author, given the context of improv, seems to have been implicitly using that as the metaphor the entire time but it didn’t stick to me until I thought about it more.
- permo-w 4y ago
  after slight confusion, I read it as question giver/taker, but stage giver/taker makes more sense in context
- djmips 4y ago
  Thanks. Great mnemonic!
sriram_malhar 4y ago
In the sense of Give the spotlight o another person, or Take the spotlight and hold on to it.

kordlessagain 4y ago

Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations, while takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations. When giver meets giver or taker meets taker, all is well. However, when giver meets taker, giver gives and taker takes, and giver gets resentful.

quickthrower2 4y ago
I think good conversations require taking turns in the giving receiving roles. This is, I believe a prerequisite for a good friendship. And for good friends the turns could be weeks long rather than minutes. As you have proven to each other you care about each overs life already, so it can adjust to circumstances.

XCSme 4y ago

Nice read, seems a bit biased and over-simplified, but I really enjoyed it and learned new things.

sizzle 4y ago

This sounds like introversion (taker) vs extroversion (giver) Is this related to social comfort speaking with others?

solarmist 4y ago
never mind. I hadn’t gotten far enough in the article.
- permo-w 4y ago
  I assume they read giver/taker as of information rather than of questions. that’s how I read it at first, and I feel it does make more sense
stu2b50 4y ago
I don't think that correspondance really works. For one, it is a bit of a conflation between introversion/extroversion and being outspoken vs being quiet, where what *version you are is more about natural proclivities. That is to say, one can be fine with, and quite good at, something they don't enjoy (and vice versa - there are many people who really enjoy constant social interaction but are quite bad at it!). But even within outspoken/quiet, you can easily see those attributes in different takers and givers. For instance, a circumstance where someone is constantly asking questions, and getting short, blunt answers seems like an outspoken giver overpowering a quiet taker. On the other side, someone who blabs incessantly while the other party meekly subsides to just asking questions occasionally is an outspoken taker, taking the stage and never letting go of it.
neumann 4y ago
I think other way around?

randcraw 4y ago

I think the metaphor of doorknobs doesn't really capture what it is that motivates people to converse. To my mind's eye, an door that's ajar is more compelling since it provides a glimpse of myriad untold imaginings that may lie within. Ideally, the not-yet-engaged conversant might be tempted to peek behind this door to speak to something personally of interest to them, regardless of what was said by whomever opened it. I think the trick is to suggest several possible openings such that one manages to suck them in. A topic I find never fails to engage is a recent movie or book, liked or hated. Why so? Did the techniques of the author or director or cast or production resonate or miss the mark? how would they have changed the plot, the actors, the setting, or the ending? How did this story compare to others they liked more? And so on… There's nothing magic about movies or books, but everyone has opinions about storytelling and usually feels free to discuss it, since involvement and criticism are pretty much the purpose of fiction in the first place. That's one open door that will usually entice a room of strangers to break the silence.

sriram_malhar 4y ago

I like this definition of give (the spotlight) vs take (the spotlight). This works in an improv setting where all participants have something to say. I have trouble with the other scenario -- possibly more common -- where the participants are reluctant to say much. I used to define these as takers ... they take energy from the giver (the initiator of the conversation); the giver needs to constantly re-up the energy.

Nimitz14 4y ago

Excellent article! Feel like Ive had a few of these realizations the hard way (i used to often, still sometimes do, just text someone a Q without offering something at the same time). Wish I had learned these lessons earlier. The point how different 1on1 and group conversations are is a great one, without someone there being open to get ridiculed noone talks.

CarnunMP 4y ago

Definite overlap with another essay on the front page right now, The Church of Interruption: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023

MacroChip 4y ago

I was confused for a few sentences when the giver/taker terms were used without explicit definition. I assumed they were used to denote information givers/takers but the definition is more like spotlight giver/takers