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

41–50 of 72 posts

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

#41

Post by sp332 »

GFischer wrote: post #39
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

Are programmers and similar more likely to "break" the second Gricean maxim? From the link: Quantity of Information * Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). * Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. I recall a discussion here about the quantity of information we tend to give relative to the "average" person

I think people in general, once they start talking about a subject they are passionate about, will start giving way more information than necessary.

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

#43

Post by TheSOB88 »

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…

I tend to play mind games with the people who do nothing but complain. Ask slightly "off" questions, agree with them on the wrong points, etc. It's slightly more entertaining, at least!

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

#44

Post by DLWormwood »

jpr wrote: post #14

Uh-oh, if 3/4 of people can't conversate, couldn't it just be that people aren't meant to do that?

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 life alone or paired off.) Humans have engaged in antisocial and asocial activities (monasteries, homesteads, and hermitage) for all of recorded history, and I resent those today who seem to delight in trying to make other gregarious like themselves.

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

#46

Post by Psyonic »

ora600 wrote: post #36
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 :)

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.

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

#47

Post by philwelch »

DLWormwood wrote: post #44
jpr wrote: post #14

Uh-oh, if 3/4 of people can't conversate, couldn't it just be that people aren't meant to do that?

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.

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

#48

Post by saint-loup »

lionhearted wrote: post #24
ambulatorybird wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took some philosophy classes in college, where I learned about the concept. If you want to read more, the best place to start would be the references and external links provided in the Wikipedia articles. Also try googling for papers by Grice.

I'm skimming and bookmarking some Grice right now. Exciting stuff. Thank you :)

Just to add few links basically in the same field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle#Speech_acts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_theory

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

#49

Post by nandemo »

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.

I've tried to use the rules of implicature to understand your comment but I couldn't.

You seem to be implying that one of the Wikipedia articles is wrong since it's unlikely that a soccer player would do advanced linguistics research. But you should consider a more likely hypothesis, namely, Wikipedia is correct and Patrick McBride the scholar and Patrick McBride the soccer player are different persons.

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

#50

Post by BoppreH »

lionhearted wrote: post #16
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

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature Hey, that's really, really fantastic and useful. I can't believe I've never seen it before. Are you in linguistics? Care to recommend some more reading, articles, essays?

> implying implicature is not widely used
Post reply on HN