>(“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.”) And asking your partner question after question and resenting them when they don’t return the favor isn’t generosity; it’s social entrapment
I'm not a great texter but this resonated with me and I'd never really thought about it. It's annoying when I don't feel like texting and I just get bombarded with questions demanding a response. On the other hand I can sympathize if they want to chat and I just don't.
I feel like I've been on both sides of all the examples in this piece depending on what kind of mood I'm in
And then, if you don't make any questions, they may think that you don't care enough about them. Also, if you just often share information that is interesting to you, some may think you are tedious/boring.
Notice that both your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you. If that is your idea of socializing, I would come to the same conclusion.
As cliche as it is, find things in others that genuinely interest you. And don't expect it be a fruitful experience. There are so many reasons the socializing ritual can end up being unfulfilling.
Did you notice? People tends to interpret others in the worst possible way; even you inferred from my two short sentences that I am a controlling person. I'm not offended, it's just funny, and kind of reinforces my previous point.
Regarding your interpretation, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a huge difference between influencing someone to do what you want and simply being careful with what you say in order to avoid triggering negative responses/feelings in your peers.
I don't think the latter falls into being controlling/manipulative in any way, on the contrary, I think it is the base of good social etiquette, and I prefer to be surrounded by people who behave like that than the opposite.
There's some good irony in your reply and I think we're both laughing for different reasons. I have no intention in being combative, but it is you who interpreted my post in the worst possible way.
I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person. I was only referring to your fixation on their reactions and feelings.
> I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person
You literally said:
> your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you
Although the tone you hear in your head may sound stoic, I don't think that stance is neutral at all. You didn't say "I think your sentences..." or "Looks like your sentences..."; you made a subjective affirmation based on two sentences I said about people's feelings in conversations, on a thread about people's feelings in conversations, on a post about people's feelings in conversations.
If my two sentences in this context really mean that I am fixated, then everyone in HN is fixated on whatever they write, which is ridiculous.
I'm starting to think you are just trying to troll me.
Once I realized that some people expect and are happy for you to jump in with unprompted thoughts or stories, it became easier for me to be intentional about doing so.
I think I'm a lot better now than when I was younger at adapting to a wide range of conversational styles, mostly just from paying more attention to that dynamic.
Do you feel like your conversational toolbox has evolved over time? :)
Ha, yes a bit! Not interrupting or talking over someone was drilled into me in childhood, but exposure to different family dynamics helped me learn that it's not a universal value, and that I can adapt and adjust my communication styles for different groups and situations.
That's still a bit of a struggle to push myself to "speak out of turn" and ensure my voice is included in a discussion.
The articles employs the concept of Affordances, which comes largely from JJ Gibson, a brilliant psychologist who studied perception.
I used to teach a course on Gibson... so I'd like to clarify what he meant by affordances, which is a bit more powerful of an idea than presented in the article
His insight was that how you perceive something is not objective, but subjective. Or as he would say, the subjective turns out to be objective reality. So affordances reflects the fact that how you relate to something is in terms of what it affords you. A good example: An excellent downhill skier sees a near vertical drop as easy-peasy and not dangerous. The same skier learning to snowboard pulls up at this veritable cliff and says, holy shit, that's steep! Same physical world changes depending on how you relate to it on the present circumstances
JJ Gibson used such ideas to overthrow the object reality idea of perception, suggesting that perception is inherently a being-in-the-world phenomenon, not an objective knowing of the world (that exists, but is secondary and stripped of subjective experience).
>Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations; takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations.
I don't really understand the thesis outlined in the article. "Givers" and "takers" are defined like this, but it actually sounds like the two types of conversationalists are "actives" and "passives", where actives seek to move the conversation forward and passives let others move it forward. A giver-and-taker conversation where both participants are alternatingly active can work. The giver asks a question and the taker answers it but then adds something of their own that doesn't let the conversation grind to a halt.
Example:
A: Hey, have you heard about X? (giver, active)
B: Oh, I hate X. I think Y. (taker, active)
A: Woah, hang on. I'm not so sure about Y. (taker, active)
B: Oh, yeah? Do you think Z? (giver, active)
In my experience, the absolute worst conversations I've had were those where I felt I was the only one putting in any effort, trying to come up with topic after topic only to have them peter out in under a minute, followed by silence.
I also don't know that people are necessarily fixed in their roles, be as giver, taker, passive, or active. In fact, if I'd have to guess, an engaging conversation has the participants constantly switch roles with the flow, depending on how much they have to say on a given topic.
So I think a corollary from all this is that a conversation breaks down when an active participant switches to passive expecting the other to become active, when in fact the other person just wants to be passive, or when two passive people try to have a conversation, in which case nothing happens at all.
On a quick skim, my interpretation is that the article critiques the classic (but simplistic) advice that asking questions and letting the other person talk more than you is the key to having a good conversation, especially to ensuring that the other person is happy with the conversation.
The classic advice is basically a caution against being a boring monologuer. And it has its merit. But this is an extra "level 2 conversationalist" lesson. It's the old: "OK remember those rules you learned in level 1? Here's when you can break them".
Th affordance analogy is that you want to give yourself and your conversation partner an abundance of options and opportunities for good conversation. Asking questions often is a way of doing that, but it's not the only way, and not all questions are equally helpful.
I wish it were easier to just say to someone. Hey I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but I’m feeling to end this conversation now. Is it OK that we bring it to an end?
Just say "Hey, I gotta run. It was nice talking to you." Or something to that effect. Most people aren't going to get upset if you need to wrap up a conversation. And if they do get upset (assuming they aren't having an emergency), it's a red flag.
Alternatives: "can we talk later, I'm really busy with ___."
Or in a work setting, "I'm in the middle of something, do you mind sending an email?"
Social settings, excuse yourself to the bathroom, they'll move on.
If you don't like the conversation, "do you mind if we talk about something else?".
There are tons of ways to wrap up or avoid conversation. The more honest you are the better. And take note of how others gracefully end conversations with you and use those phrases too.
In my perception ending a conversation is much easier than keeping it alive. People will pick up easily that you are not interested, even in the non verbal part of communication, no?
I think this framework explains why the best presentations aren't the ones packed with the most information. Like a slide full of bullet points feels kind of like a frictionless wall to me - there's nothing for the audience to grab onto. But a slide with one provocative question, or a single surprising statistic, is covered in doorknobs. It gives people something to mentally reach for.
The flip side: slides designed by committee oftem tend to remove all the doorknobs. Every bold claim seems to gets softened, every interesting aside gets cut for time, etc., until you're left with something that nobody can disagree with but nobody finds very interesting either.
Interesting to read that people like that you answer in milliseconds to their questions or suggestions.
I very often interrupt people when eagerly fitting into a conversation. That happens almost automatically and sometimes I apologize and say, sorry i was interrupting what you are saying... Often they don't continue where they got interrupted but don't seem annoyed.
Maybe it has to do with those emerging doorknobs i noticed and couldn't resist in grabbing.
>(“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.”) And asking your partner question after question and resenting them when they don’t return the favor isn’t generosity; it’s social entrapment
I'm not a great texter but this resonated with me and I'd never really thought about it. It's annoying when I don't feel like texting and I just get bombarded with questions demanding a response. On the other hand I can sympathize if they want to chat and I just don't.
I feel like I've been on both sides of all the examples in this piece depending on what kind of mood I'm in
And then, if you don't make any questions, they may think that you don't care enough about them. Also, if you just often share information that is interesting to you, some may think you are tedious/boring.
Socializing is really hard.
Notice that both your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you. If that is your idea of socializing, I would come to the same conclusion.
As cliche as it is, find things in others that genuinely interest you. And don't expect it be a fruitful experience. There are so many reasons the socializing ritual can end up being unfulfilling.
Did you notice? People tends to interpret others in the worst possible way; even you inferred from my two short sentences that I am a controlling person. I'm not offended, it's just funny, and kind of reinforces my previous point.
Regarding your interpretation, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a huge difference between influencing someone to do what you want and simply being careful with what you say in order to avoid triggering negative responses/feelings in your peers.
I don't think the latter falls into being controlling/manipulative in any way, on the contrary, I think it is the base of good social etiquette, and I prefer to be surrounded by people who behave like that than the opposite.
There's some good irony in your reply and I think we're both laughing for different reasons. I have no intention in being combative, but it is you who interpreted my post in the worst possible way.
I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person. I was only referring to your fixation on their reactions and feelings.
> I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person
You literally said:
> your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you
Although the tone you hear in your head may sound stoic, I don't think that stance is neutral at all. You didn't say "I think your sentences..." or "Looks like your sentences..."; you made a subjective affirmation based on two sentences I said about people's feelings in conversations, on a thread about people's feelings in conversations, on a post about people's feelings in conversations.
If my two sentences in this context really mean that I am fixated, then everyone in HN is fixated on whatever they write, which is ridiculous.
I'm starting to think you are just trying to troll me.
I often feel like a "giver" in conversations, asking all the questions but never being given opportunities to share my own stories or viewpoint...
I seek and value friends that DO ask about me, and then try to remind myself to not take it for granted, and return the favor to them!
This gives some additional lens, though, to be flexible with "takers" and give them credit for putting themselves out there.
Once I realized that some people expect and are happy for you to jump in with unprompted thoughts or stories, it became easier for me to be intentional about doing so.
I think I'm a lot better now than when I was younger at adapting to a wide range of conversational styles, mostly just from paying more attention to that dynamic.
Do you feel like your conversational toolbox has evolved over time? :)
Ha, yes a bit! Not interrupting or talking over someone was drilled into me in childhood, but exposure to different family dynamics helped me learn that it's not a universal value, and that I can adapt and adjust my communication styles for different groups and situations.
That's still a bit of a struggle to push myself to "speak out of turn" and ensure my voice is included in a discussion.
The articles employs the concept of Affordances, which comes largely from JJ Gibson, a brilliant psychologist who studied perception.
I used to teach a course on Gibson... so I'd like to clarify what he meant by affordances, which is a bit more powerful of an idea than presented in the article
His insight was that how you perceive something is not objective, but subjective. Or as he would say, the subjective turns out to be objective reality. So affordances reflects the fact that how you relate to something is in terms of what it affords you. A good example: An excellent downhill skier sees a near vertical drop as easy-peasy and not dangerous. The same skier learning to snowboard pulls up at this veritable cliff and says, holy shit, that's steep! Same physical world changes depending on how you relate to it on the present circumstances
JJ Gibson used such ideas to overthrow the object reality idea of perception, suggesting that perception is inherently a being-in-the-world phenomenon, not an objective knowing of the world (that exists, but is secondary and stripped of subjective experience).
>Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations; takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations.
I don't really understand the thesis outlined in the article. "Givers" and "takers" are defined like this, but it actually sounds like the two types of conversationalists are "actives" and "passives", where actives seek to move the conversation forward and passives let others move it forward. A giver-and-taker conversation where both participants are alternatingly active can work. The giver asks a question and the taker answers it but then adds something of their own that doesn't let the conversation grind to a halt.
Example:
A: Hey, have you heard about X? (giver, active)
B: Oh, I hate X. I think Y. (taker, active)
A: Woah, hang on. I'm not so sure about Y. (taker, active)
B: Oh, yeah? Do you think Z? (giver, active)
In my experience, the absolute worst conversations I've had were those where I felt I was the only one putting in any effort, trying to come up with topic after topic only to have them peter out in under a minute, followed by silence.
I also don't know that people are necessarily fixed in their roles, be as giver, taker, passive, or active. In fact, if I'd have to guess, an engaging conversation has the participants constantly switch roles with the flow, depending on how much they have to say on a given topic.
So I think a corollary from all this is that a conversation breaks down when an active participant switches to passive expecting the other to become active, when in fact the other person just wants to be passive, or when two passive people try to have a conversation, in which case nothing happens at all.
On a quick skim, my interpretation is that the article critiques the classic (but simplistic) advice that asking questions and letting the other person talk more than you is the key to having a good conversation, especially to ensuring that the other person is happy with the conversation.
The classic advice is basically a caution against being a boring monologuer. And it has its merit. But this is an extra "level 2 conversationalist" lesson. It's the old: "OK remember those rules you learned in level 1? Here's when you can break them".
Th affordance analogy is that you want to give yourself and your conversation partner an abundance of options and opportunities for good conversation. Asking questions often is a way of doing that, but it's not the only way, and not all questions are equally helpful.
Previously:
Good conversations have lots of doorknobs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35874183 - May 2023 (20 comments)
Good conversations have lots of doorknobs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32542260 - Aug 2022 (149 comments)
I wish it were easier to just say to someone. Hey I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but I’m feeling to end this conversation now. Is it OK that we bring it to an end?
Just say "Hey, I gotta run. It was nice talking to you." Or something to that effect. Most people aren't going to get upset if you need to wrap up a conversation. And if they do get upset (assuming they aren't having an emergency), it's a red flag.
Alternatives: "can we talk later, I'm really busy with ___."
Or in a work setting, "I'm in the middle of something, do you mind sending an email?"
Social settings, excuse yourself to the bathroom, they'll move on.
If you don't like the conversation, "do you mind if we talk about something else?".
There are tons of ways to wrap up or avoid conversation. The more honest you are the better. And take note of how others gracefully end conversations with you and use those phrases too.
I don't understand, could you elaborate?
In my perception ending a conversation is much easier than keeping it alive. People will pick up easily that you are not interested, even in the non verbal part of communication, no?
I think this framework explains why the best presentations aren't the ones packed with the most information. Like a slide full of bullet points feels kind of like a frictionless wall to me - there's nothing for the audience to grab onto. But a slide with one provocative question, or a single surprising statistic, is covered in doorknobs. It gives people something to mentally reach for.
The flip side: slides designed by committee oftem tend to remove all the doorknobs. Every bold claim seems to gets softened, every interesting aside gets cut for time, etc., until you're left with something that nobody can disagree with but nobody finds very interesting either.
Interesting to read that people like that you answer in milliseconds to their questions or suggestions.
I very often interrupt people when eagerly fitting into a conversation. That happens almost automatically and sometimes I apologize and say, sorry i was interrupting what you are saying... Often they don't continue where they got interrupted but don't seem annoyed.
Maybe it has to do with those emerging doorknobs i noticed and couldn't resist in grabbing.
why not use "affordances"? it's the correct word, and even though it's low-frequency, wouldn't that pull people into the article?
The article mentions affordances. I assume the title uses doorknobs because that's a more familiar word as you point out.
Doorknobs is a more commonly used word I'll grant you, but it meant noting to me at all whereas affordances would have.
[flagged]