39 ms·

Conversation skills essentials

• hintymad 4y ago
  > “Cool! That sounds fun!” 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.
  • kmoser 4y ago
    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.
  • CipherThrowaway 4y ago
    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.
  • npteljes 4y ago
    There is no such list, and you're entitled to feel hurt when others are manipulating you like this. On the other hand, interested people usually ask questions. It's worth it to look out for that as a signal, but it's not going to be 100% valid.
• berkeshire 4y ago
  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.
• amadeuspagel 4y ago
  > Don’t Interrupt The Church of Interruption[1] is a great essay on this topic, arguing that it's a matter of compatibility. It's been discussed on HN a lot[2][3]. [1]: https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21044009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21044009 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023
  • alcover 4y ago
    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 ? Thank you for reading my torment blog.
    • mbar84 4y ago
      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.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • jfk13 4y ago
• cj 4y ago
  All good tactics! 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.
  • splatzone 4y ago
    Great points. 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
    • hammock 4y ago
      > tease them gently Depending on the tone used, saying ‘that’s really funny’ could very easily be turned into a gentle tease
  • TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > 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.
    • baxtr 4y ago
      Is your username related to that story?
• User23 4y ago
  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.
  • 082349872349872 4y ago
    I enjoyed https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Über_den_Umgang_mit_Menschen 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)...
  • britch 4y ago
    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.
    • sammalloy 4y ago
      > 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).
      • SpelingBeeChamp 4y ago
        >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). How did you learn that? (I think you’re right.)
• anonymousDan 4y ago
  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.
  • Swizec 4y ago
    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.
    • JackFr 4y ago
      > 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.
      • Swizec 4y ago
        Well obviously you don’t interrupt them and take over. You interrupt to add important details then let them keep going.
    • realworldperson 4y ago
      [dead]
    • User23 4y ago
      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.
• nyx 4y ago
  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.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • throwayaway999 4y ago
    A younger me benefited from articles like this. 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
  • i_am_toaster 4y ago
    There is probably a small subset of people who will, but a much larger subset who would not.
  • fifticon 4y ago
    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.
• Reptur 4y ago
  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.
  • jraph 4y ago
    Would you be able to write it down on paper? 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.
    • SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      I’ve tried to do this but it’s intimidating or distracting to the person you’re conversing with when you suddenly start taking notes as they speak.
      • jraph 4y ago
        I guess a possible solution would be avoiding long monologues. I easily get bored when someone speaks for a long time.
      • borski 4y ago
        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.
    • louthy 4y ago
      > Would you be able to write it down on paper? 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.
• marstall 4y ago
  lol I want to be this guy's friend. no but seriously I learned a lot, thanks.
• agolio 4y ago
  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...
  • jraph 4y ago
    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.
    • BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
      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.
      • bittercynic 4y ago
        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.
  • hutzlibu 4y ago
    "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.
• fsckboy 4y ago
  > 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.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • sammalloy 4y ago
    > 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.
    • borski 4y ago
      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.
• jancsika 4y ago
  > 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. :) Edit: clarification
• personjerry 4y ago
  > Verbalize when you change your mind 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.
  • nuclearnice1 4y ago
    I encounter that mode of conversation often. 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.
    • borski 4y ago
      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.
• jimbokun 4y ago
  It strikes me that the average Twitter exchange follows the opposite of most of these rules.
  • Havoc 4y ago
    They’re paid for eyeballs not genuine interactions
  • BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
    The purpose of Twitter threads isn't to have conversations, it's to wage cultural war. Very different goals!
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• sweetjuly 4y ago
  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.
  • beaker52 4y ago
    “Stop. We’ve understood you and now we should consider other perspectives. Anne, what’s on your mind?”
  • borski 4y ago
    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.
    • sweetjuly 4y ago
      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.
      • borski 4y ago
        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!
  • deleted 4y ago
• johnfn 4y ago
  > 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.
  • jackmott 4y ago
    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?
    • 4y ago
• devwastaken 4y ago
  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.
  • borski 4y ago
    What? Do you have a source for this? Most kids give zero fucks about politics, much less what their parents care about.
  • the_only_law 4y ago
    I also seriously doubt that disrespectful school kids are a recent phenomenon.
  • sublinear 4y ago
    Agree and I'd also like to add that communication comes naturally assuming one has a clear head. Young people don't think anything about finding success or failure with a person. Only adults are desperate to be someone or believe in something because incentives begin to align with certain behaviors.
• bradlys 4y ago
  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.
• digitalsushi 4y ago
  Describing the rules for conversation is like building a regular expression to describe a context free grammar.
  • ergocoder 4y ago
    The concrete examples are helpful. It doesn't need to be complete. It just needs to be helpful to a non-trivial number of people.
• avodonosov 4y ago
  > 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?
  • tapanjk 4y ago
    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.
  • AgentOrange1234 4y ago
    No? Doesn’t that seem a bit disproportionate?
  • gsk22 4y ago
    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.
    • mvnuweucxqokii 4y ago
      > if every rude student got expelled, there wouldn't be many left in school Anecdotally, in my experience, probably about 90% would've been left in school.
  • spicyramen_ 4y ago
    [dead]
  • klodolph 4y ago
    That’s not a good approach. 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.
• porknubbins 4y ago
  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.
• steve76 4y ago
  [dead]
• sublinear 4y ago
  Nope nope nope. 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 :(
  • klodolph 4y ago
    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.
    • sublinear 4y ago
      Sure I can elaborate. 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.
• abalashov 4y ago
  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/ 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.
• willnonya 4y ago
  Blaming this behavior on covid is a silly premise. Especially when doing so for high-school students.
  • booboofixer 4y ago
    Agreed. I've witnessed incredibly rude behavior at my university well before covid.
  • swang 4y ago
    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?
    • base698 4y ago
      Schools were closed for two years in favor of remote during 9/11 and H1N1?
• peacefulhat 4y ago
  Starts off with a teacher demanding to see a student's documentation for their bathroom trip then complaining that kids have no social skills.
• unsupp0rted 4y ago
  > 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. 5 minutes of this is exhausting in itself. But the work is fun.
  • ergocoder 4y ago
    It is a blessing. Self-centred clients are the easiest to please. I'd happily sit through it if they are paying. You will be a handful of people that the clients actually like, which is an advantage in itself.
• sagarpatil 4y ago
  “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.
  • carom 4y ago
    I can imagine doing this and did not get slapped (~15 years ago). Did not respect my school teachers and am doing great IRL.
    • MrVandemar 4y ago
      I'm sure you're doing great IRL! Capitalist cultures select for sociopathy.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • deadpannini 4y ago
        Don't worry, there's plenty of room for conformity in society too!
• teen 4y ago
  > 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.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• claytongulick 4y ago
  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. I wish I'd learned it much younger.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • Yasuraka 4y ago
    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."
• tanin 4y ago
  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'd love to learn more examples.
• fedeb95 4y ago
  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.
• seydor 4y ago
  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
  • sleight42 4y ago
    Shaming? As opposed to dialog or encouragement? 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.
• el_jay 4y ago
  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.
  • _def 4y ago
    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
  • seydor 4y ago
    That's the common definition of debate, no?
    • el_jay 4y ago
      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!
  • skrebbel 4y ago
    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?
    • KineticLensman 4y ago
      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.
• xnickb 4y ago
  > 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.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • nicbou 4y ago
    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.
    • xnickb 4y ago
      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.
  • adamisom 4y ago
    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.
• nicbou 4y ago
  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.
• dsQTbR7Y5mRHnZv 4y ago
  Interesting stuff!
• mgaunard 4y ago
  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.
  • k__ 4y ago
    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.
  • neontomo 4y ago
    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.
  • Whitespace 4y ago
    > 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.
• kashunstva 4y ago
  > 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.
  • jdthedisciple 4y ago
    Sometimes pushing back is a way to show that you care about them.
• totalhack 4y ago
  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]".
  • vlod 4y ago
    >FORD: Family, Occupation, Recreation, Dreams. 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.
    • totalhack 4y ago
      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.
• scarface74 4y ago
  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.
• everybodyknows 4y ago
  I'll propose a couple more: 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.
• avinoth 4y ago
  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.
• bilsbie 4y ago
  > 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.
• bilsbie 4y ago
  Is it strange I really benefit from this kind of stuff? I think I have basic social skills but it is so nice to get things spelled out like this.
  • vlod 4y ago
    I don't think so. A lot of people don't do well at this sort of thing and out of politeness, people won't help you do better. We could all need tips every now and again!
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Hermitude 4y ago
  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.