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

Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#91

Post by krisoft »

clnq wrote: post #78
openfuture wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you got answered in downvotes I suspect the answer is "because people will switch languages on you"

I've recently seen many good and curious comments "answered in downvotes." Maybe I can't read the room, but why does that happen? Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?

> Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?

Of course there is! For example the way you have worded your question. It makes it clear what you diagre with and stimulates a conversation.

At the moment the greyed out comment simply says “why not?”. I would love to answer their question too, but it is not even clear what exactly it is about? And then further more are they disagreeing or are they requesting clarification on the root causes of some detail? If they are disagreeing on what grounds are they disagreeing?

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#92

Post by ccn0p »

crazygringo wrote: post #59

To be clear... this study is ONLY about an initial TWELVE MINUTES of conversation with a STRANGER. And so the idea that "the more you talk, the more someone will like you" should be extrapolated to e.g. an entire two-hour first date, or to existing relationships at home or at work or with friends, would obviously be nonsense. It certainly is an interesting finding, and easy to understand in retrospect -- people can d…

Right. But it would be more fun for everyone here to conclude from one headline that they should now talk 95% of the time, not to ask any questions of the other person, and even cut them off for bonus like points. +500 social XP!

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#93

Post by skorpeon87 »

clnq wrote: post #74
rootusrootus wrote: post #50

As with everything else, it seems, my anecdotal experience suggests a balance is usually the best overall answer. People with diarrhea of the mouth aren't much fun to talk to, but either are people who won't say more than three words at a time. Same with what you talk about. People like to talk about themselves, but many of them are interested in hearing about you too. Just keep it under control, and lob that convers…

Yes, people with diarrhea of the mouth make most conversations dry, one-sided, and very dull after you already know what that person's side of the story is. It's much worse if that side of the story is self-serving. That is a good analogy with throwing a ball in the conversation. Imagine ball sports where only one person is participating. That's what a one-sided conversation feels like.

I find the most frustrating conversations are with people who can't stop talking and who fail to distinguish what is or isn't important information for other people in the conversation.

> How was your flight?

> Oh it was great, I sat next to a man named Joe Smoe, wait no I think his name was Joe Blow... no he said his name was Jim Blow... wait no his name was Jim Smoe... he said he was bus driver.. or was it a truck driver?...

How do you politely say "I'm never going to meet this man, and you'll never meet him again, so who cares what his name was? Get on with the story!" I know some people who can waffle around like this for 10 minutes easily, trying to remember a detail that nobody else could conceivably care about. By the time they remember the detail everybody else has already forgotten the rest of the story anyway.

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#94

Post by skorpeon87 »

keithalewis wrote: post #67
ycombobreaker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you suggest as a cultural guideline for an American conversing with a European or Brit?

Assume they are insecure and looking for a passive-aggressive way to cut you down to their level. The British^W English are quite adept at doing this in a way where you won't realize until the next day that they were insulting you.

Additionally, don't attempt to banter even if the Brit initiates it. Brits think that Americans cannot banter and will assume that any banter from an American is intended as a sincere insult. Don't try to explain that Americans frequently banter among each other and no offense is intended, they won't believe you.

It is better to remain cordial as they 'banter' at you, but to never reciprocate.

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#95

Post by willmadden »

coldtea wrote: post #73
willmadden wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dale Carnegie already had a well established reputation when he allowed the others to speak about themselves. Apples and oranges if you are not already famous.

It's not about the others knowing who you are or your reputation, and thus not needing to establish that if you're already famous, etc. The insight is rather that others could not give less fucks if they knew about you more, what they like is to talk about themselves. This is true even if you're totally non famous and unknown to them, like a random taxi driver and you. They still like to talk about themselves over he…

It IS about your reputation. Peoples’ motivations are selfish. They want to be perceived as higher status and are constantly assessing “what’s in it for me” through their personal frame of reference.

Having someone they perceive to be influential, powerful etc. listen to them spill their guts about themselves means a lot more than if they explained their worldview to a homeless person on the street. They wouldn’t shut up about the former experience at a dinner party, but wouldn’t even engage with the latter!

The point is, if your reputation does not already proceed you, talking more about yourself (assuming you aren’t a dolt) increases your perceived social value with a stranger. If your reputation is good and proceeds you already, listening more matters.

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#96

Post by rootusrootus »

themitigating wrote: post #86
clnq wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently seen many good and curious comments "answered in downvotes." Maybe I can't read the room, but why does that happen? Is there a way to phrase statements that challenge others in a way that leads to conversation and not flags/greying out?

I'm guilty of one worded replies that get downvoted. I do get annoyed since I'm basically poking the parent for an explanation.

Some of us are kind of dense. I did not reply to the "Why not?" reply because I could not decide if it was intentionally a question about one of the things I said, or if it was a tongue-in-cheek example of someone who only uses three words or less.

Pretend I am dense, and give me a better idea of what I didn't explain well enough, and I'm happy to oblige. Everything I say makes sense in my head but I don't always communicate it effectively.

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#97

Post by rootusrootus »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #80
openfuture wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you got answered in downvotes I suspect the answer is "because people will switch languages on you"

Did you reply to the wrong comment? My prior comment doesn't seem downvoted.

Right now it does look like it attracted one or two downvotes. I did not reply to you because I didn't understand what you were asking. I thought maybe you were just being cheeky with a 'not more than three words at a time' response.

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#98

Post by skorpeon87 »

nedwin wrote: post #21
sdwr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the conversational meta has shifted in the last 80 years. But more than that, people like to talk about themselves IFF they feel safe and unjudged.

any recs on resources on latest "conversational meta"?

The only real meta is to treat everybody as an individual. Pay attention to how they react during different stages of the conversation and tailor your own behavior to make them more comfortable. Some people respond well to being asked about themselves. Other people become nervous and evasive. Pay attention to how they respond and react accordingly.

Besides that, there is no "one size fits all" approach. The only approach that works for everybody is to treat everybody like an individual with a unique personality.

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#99

Post by jtsiskin »

“In Study 3, we tested the accuracy of these forecasts by randomly assigning participants to speak for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, or 70% of the time in a dyadic conversation.“

This study does not correlate to the real word at all. A computer telling you when you should speak is so different from a natural conversation. In the real world, you’re not speaking because you’re listening, intentionally; in the study, you’re not speaking because the computer said who’s turn it was.

Re: Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations

#100

Post by jules »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #33
asaph wrote: post #5

One of the often repeated pearls of wisdom from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie, is people like to talk about themselves and they’ll like you more if you let them do that in a conversation. I’m paraphrasing. This research seems to counter that. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influ...

> from How to Win Friends and Influence People[0] by Dale Carnegie Implementing the advice in this book too literally makes for very inauthentic sounding conversation. After reading this book, I found it easy to spot other people who had read it and were trying the techniques on me. For example, when someone uses my name 10 different times in a private conversation for no obvious reason, I have a good idea that they’…

I haven't read this book, but I do try to mention a person's name. Not because of them, but because otherwise I will have forgotten their name in 2 minutes.
Post reply on HN