This has a lot of good insight, but I was struck by how differently I experience<p>> <i>“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.”</i><p>The typical response to "What's up?" from myself and, uh, nearly everyone I know, is some variation on<p>"Not much! What's up with you?" or<p>"[trivial recent happening, quickly related] So, what's been going on with you?"<p>...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.
This article reminds me of "The Church of Interruption", the best short article I ever read about communication styles: <a href="https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html" rel="nofollow">https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html</a>
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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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…<p>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.
> 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?”)<p>Gonna keep that in mind!
This article has a bit more information and terminology.<p>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.
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.
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.
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!
This provides a great mental model to build awareness / be more sensitive for the social cues during a conversation.<p>> <i>There is no known cure for egocentrism; the condition appears to be congenital.</i><p>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.
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."<p>As a giver, I'd usually rather not be stuck in the "conversation" (more like, speech) that the taker is dominating.
> 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.<p>This might be true; but looking into the linked study, it appears to be on Dartmouth students. This claim at least maybe culturally dependent.
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.<p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/my/podcast/marvel-sing-ematic-universe-part-4-crack-crack-boom/id1260742439?i=1000540478848&l=ms" rel="nofollow">https://podcasts.apple.com/my/podcast/marvel-sing-ematic-uni...</a>
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.<p>Many of encounters where I had to resist their "and you?" questions, as I saw an opportunity to expand on what they were saying.<p>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)
> Conversational affordances are things like digressions and confessions and bold claims that beg for a rejoinder.<p>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).
Definite overlap with another essay on the front page right now, The Church of Interruption: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023</a>
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
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.<p>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.
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.
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!
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.