4 ms·
Excuse me if I read that wrong, but I'd be curious why you think label "talking at" vs "talking with" is semantics. I see a significant difference between the
by kelseyfrog 3y ago
Excuse me if I read that wrong, but I'd be curious why you think label "talking at" vs "talking with" is semantics.
I see a significant difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances when I'm "talking at" vs "talking with". There's also a significant difference in response I seem to receive from people when I employ one distribution of behaviors vs the other. But, maybe you see it differently?
- unsupp0rted 3y agoI agree. “Talking at” might as well involve a cardboard cutout of my face and a tape recorder that plays back “hmm” and “wow” utterances at random intervals. My being there in person doesn’t materially affect what the other person experiences from me anyway.
- pepve 3y agoI was trying to compliment you! When you talk about your friend, about what you might ask him, and what he might answer, I think you have insight there. I think that's valuable. And I should have stopped there. But I went on to try to make a point about the quick mental model you proposed about "talking at" vs "talking with". Which I think leads to arguing about semantics (with others or yourself). What you're saying about the difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances sounds reasonable to me (if a bit abstract). I just think the specific insight into your friend's behavior is a lot more valuable.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoD'oh! thank you. Leave it to the medium of text to throw a wrench into things!