Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

dilbert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#51

Post by johnfn »

jholman wrote: post #30
johnfn wrote: post #17

I realized a few months ago that I was talking too much in conversations, and not listening nearly enough. So for the last few months, I've decided to talk a lot less, and spend a lot more time just listening to people. In one on one conversation, I mostly just ask the other guy about the things he's talking about, to lead him into deeper (perhaps more interesting) areas. This is a great way to talk about interesting…

I have a similar project of self-improvement going on, but I find the problem much subtler than what you describe. First off, yeah, with the people I most value, I talk too much and don't listen enough. Mea culpa, must improve. On the other hand, perhaps I just need to level up my skill at asking guiding questions, and perhaps I just need to widen my interests, but I frequently have trouble being interested in what p…

Yeah; I like to assume that the fault always rests on me. Perhaps it's not always true, but I think that's the fastest way to improve. As for what you specifically mention, I would try to find a deeper cause of complaints. I ask stuff like "does this happen often?" or "do you find that other people are like these people? Why?"

I think that there are always ways to (gradually!) steer a conversation to what you both find mutually interesting. It is an art, though.

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#52

Post by byw »

For me, a big part of it isn't so much learning the rules, but unlearning the non-rules. In hindsight, a lot of the rules really aren't that complex, and can be easily picked up through observation.

The problem is that some people have overly sensitive radars, so we tend to pick up the noise along with the signal. On top of that we have a questioning nature, and we don't like to follow a rule based on its face value, we end up lingering in doubts on the universality of the rule, or its moral justifications. Other times we hold a rule in contempt, seeing it as cliche. All these get in the way when a social exchange demands you to apply the rules swiftly without thinking.

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#53

Post by ora600 »

Psyonic wrote: post #46
ora600 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may have sampling bias - you tend to hear more the ones that completely dominate conversations. This doesn't immediately mean they are really the majority. Personally, I wish my CS program taught me to speak more at a conversation setting (as opposed to "raise your hand to speak" classroom). I spent the first 3 years of my career unable to get a word in at meetings.

No offense, but that doesn't really seem like the job of your CS program. No doubt a communications course would have helped, though engineers tend to look down on that major.

Of course it isn't! I was just riffing off the idea in the parent comment.

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#54

Post by lvecsey »

It's interesting to consider that entire societies have been built around these concepts. Usually when I see the Implicature thing that has been mentioned here, I often question whether the exact opposite (or something else all together) should be considered first; from there, you can think about whether everyone might be right.

Similarly, with those maxims about communication it's as if everyone is striving for a genuine meaning. However, if you take things to their limit there is nihilism everywhere.

The aliens, asper people, and 3/4's of everyone could just be unaware but also just rejecting the conventional notions of conversation.

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#55

Post by [deleted] »

dasil003 wrote: post #28
maukdaddy wrote: post #7

I wish that both CS and MBA programs taught students to listen more. One of the few similarities I find between programmers/engineers and MBAs is the need to completely dominate a conversation. A few seminars on active listening would help everyone :)

Or you could just throw them both into a startup and let them have it out cage match style

[deleted]

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#56

Post by DLWormwood »

philwelch wrote: post #47
DLWormwood wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I’m going against the grain here, but I’ve always been suspicious of people who claim that humans are a “social animal.” Thing is, the concept is a continuum, yet most people who say it mean it in a context like ants, bees and bonobo apes, when I happen to believe that the social behavior of lions and wolves is more apt. (Humans are best off in small family clusters, with significant periods of time in their l…

Monasteries and homesteads have never attracted a significant proportion of the population, and they're not all that solitary, either. Humans are a social animal, and if you're not convinced of that, study the psychological effects of feral children and solitary confinement.

Read what I wrote more closely. I didn’t say “no contacts,” I said “few.” Being social doesn’t imply packing our “monkeyspheres” to the 100 person maximum that the social butterflies seem to want to subject everybody to.

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#57

Post by philwelch »

Amnon wrote: post #35
ambulatorybird wrote: post #3

Other kinds of conversational rules, perhaps of more interest to linguists, programmers, philosophers, etc.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maxim

I wanted to write about how linguistics should be handled by linguists not philosophers, so I checked the citations. I noticed that Wikipedia says implicature was coined by Patrick McBride which, according to Wikipedia is "a retired American soccer midfielder". Turns out the article was edited some time ago by an anonymous user. I guess not enough people visited it to notice.

There's linguistics and then there's philosophy of language. Don't confuse the two.

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#59

Post by Goosey »

billybob wrote: post #21
ja27 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my bosses made a difficult coworker take a Dale Carnegie class. Afterward he said that it "changed his life." I thought it made him even creepier with the constant fake smile, eye contact and repetition of people's first name in conversation.

I haven't taken a course, but have read (most of) "How to Win Friends and Influence People." While what you describe sounds creepy, there are good principles in there, and you don't have to take it so far. For example, he points out that most people never accept blame for anything. From CEOs to convicts, we generally blame our failures on circumstances or other people. So with this in mind, he gives ways of steering…

I think that there is a (strange, in my opinion) backlash against any 'hacking' of our personalities when it is presented directly as such. If the book had been named 'The Study of Social Intercourse' or something less "sleazy" I doubt it would be a controversial book.

My view is hacking your personality is no different then improving your coding skills. It is just another skill set and there are advantages that can be derived from improving it. And, as you point out, personality isn't something that can be directly changed.. Thats called 'faking it'. No, personality means changing deeper things, like learning to care for people (or learning to care for yourself). Plus... Compared to coding it is a skill set that is far more useful and influential (unless you get really lucky...)

Re: "Uh-oh. I didn't know conversation had rules."

#60

Post by Goosey »

mike_h wrote: post #4
reader5000 wrote: post #2

Keyword here is active listening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening

Key concept is that if people want to submit themselves to a one-way stream of communication, they have TV and the internet for that. If a conversation isn't two-way, you're alienating someone.

A proper conversation should be an exchange of gifts. Your words are a gift to them, and theirs to you. Never give yourself a gift.
Post reply on HN