[HN Gopher] Good Conversations Have Lots of Doorknobs
___________________________________________________________________
Good Conversations Have Lots of Doorknobs
Author : worldvoyageur
Score : 340 points
Date : 2022-08-21 17:18 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (experimentalhistory.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (experimentalhistory.substack.com)
| andreyk wrote:
| 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!
| prashnts wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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.
|
| 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.
| Etheryte wrote:
| I wouldn't say the traits are universal, as in someone is
| always a giver or someone is always a taker, but rather it
| depends heavily on context. For example, I've noticed I'm
| mostly a giver when I'm talking to my parents, because I'm very
| interested in hearing what they have to say while they're still
| around, whereas I'm often a taker around my friends. The answer
| to your question then would be to be flexible and match your
| conversation partner. If you find your partner to be a giver,
| you too can try to give to meet them halfway, similarly for the
| other option.
| fishtoaster wrote:
| For me, I grew up a Taker. I'm not sure if this was a cultural
| thing (my parents are takers), a regional thing (western NY),
| or a me-being-an-unaware-dork thing (I was).
|
| But now I find myself surrounded by Givers. I'm not sure if
| this is a cultural thing (SF tech scene), a regional thing
| (west coast), or a my-social-circle thing.
|
| So I had to learn to be a giver to make any friends. What's
| interesting is that my _old_ friends are mostly Takers. I
| imagine this was a selection bias: givers got bored of talking
| to me quickly! I get together with some old friends from
| college once or twice a year and every time it 's a bit jarring
| for the first hour as I have to switch to all-take mode.
|
| Anyway, the point being that I think you can learn to switch,
| and to blend between the two modes. In fact, I think being able
| to do so is generally good and helpful.
| flyaway123 wrote:
| This provides a great mental model to build awareness / be more
| sensitive for the social cues during a conversation.
|
| > _There is no known cure for egocentrism; the condition appears
| to be congenital._
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| rwilson4 wrote:
| 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!
| russellbeattie wrote:
| 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.
| tcgv wrote:
| > 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?")
|
| Gonna keep that in mind!
| jstx1 wrote:
| On the flip-side, "remember when we..." becomes very boring if
| you're meeting someone that you aren't forming new memories
| with.
| gitgud wrote:
| True, if someone in the conversation wasn't at that event,
| it's very hard for them to care, unless there's a punchline
| or its somehow actually related to them...
| Aperocky wrote:
| Personally, I want to hear about exciting stuff that my friend
| did and tell them about the exciting stuff that happened to me
| (though not much of that has happened recently.. can just stay
| relatively quiet).
| takanori wrote:
| 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.
| SamPatt wrote:
| I have. It's my favorite way to keep up with people.
|
| The only issue is that people can't always listen, or speak, so
| they need to either just wait to reply, or you both need to
| switch to text often.
|
| We tend to learn each other's schedules and then send messages
| based on availability.
| myself248 wrote:
| When I was a little kid, I remember my dad and uncle would mail
| cassette tapes back and forth, instead of writing letters.
|
| Dad would gleefully find one in the mail, unwrap it, open a
| beer, and sit down with his headphones on and notepad in hand.
| Once in a while he'd actually pause the playback while jotting
| notes, but mostly the things he wanted to respond to only
| needed a scribbled word or two as a prompt for later.
|
| Having finished the tape, he'd walk around for a minute to
| collect his thoughts, grab a second beer but not open it,
| rewind the tape, press Record, wait a count of 5 for the leader
| to be past the record head, then crack that beer right into the
| microphone -- every tape started with that sound -- and begin
| to hold forth.
| avivo wrote:
| > 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.
|
| This might be true; but looking into the linked study, it appears
| to be on Dartmouth students. This claim at least maybe culturally
| dependent.
| jackconsidine wrote:
| 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.
| zwkrt wrote:
| True. A date with an interviewer can be flattering if they are
| engaged in your answers, but interviewing is also a subtle way
| to control the flow of information and remain private.
| djmips wrote:
| I found the giver and taker nomenclature hard to keep straight.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| I had a hard time remembering which is which until I started to
| mentally append "stage" to it. Stage giver, stage taker -
| taking the stage, giving the stage.
|
| The author, given the context of improv, seems to have been
| implicitly using that as the metaphor the entire time but it
| didn't stick to me until I thought about it more.
| a9h74j wrote:
| This article has a bit more information and terminology.
|
| 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.
| notRobot wrote:
| > This article has a bit more information and terminology.
|
| I may be misreading this, but did you mean to link to
| something?
| uwagar wrote:
| i prefer love handles.
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| You might need Monty Hall to open a lot of doors before you can
| find those
| gkoberger wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://podcasts.apple.com/my/podcast/marvel-sing-ematic-uni...
| saghm wrote:
| Logistically, how does the instrumental part of the music get
| improvised on the spot in a way that the actors can sing along?
| Do they have preexisting music determined that the actors can
| improvise lyrics to? Or do they just sing without musical
| backing and then music gets recorded to match it later?
| gkoberger wrote:
| In this particular podcast, they have a three-piece band they
| work with every episode (guitar, drums and piano). The music
| is improvised just like the singing. Usually either the piano
| or guitar will start, the other two will join in. And then
| they follow each other.
|
| They definitely rely on musical tropes they all know, for
| example "rock song" or "broadway song". But overall, it's a
| combination of them all being insanely talented, having
| worked together a lot, and once in a while cue-ing each
| other.
|
| Here's an episode of another podcast they guested on
| (Switched On Pop) where they walk through their process (AND
| do an improv musical at the same time):
| https://switchedonpop.com/episodes/switched-off-book-with-
| je...
|
| Also, if you want a quick video of them doing it, here's an
| example with them, the band, and Jason Mantzoukas:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCI0gD_K27M
| drewcoo wrote:
| Did you ever see the David Letterman show? Paul Schaffer, the
| keyboardist and bandleader on the show is a great example of
| that. Before Letterman, he played piano on Saturday Night
| Live.
|
| Paul was an improviser, musically and comedically. Some word
| or concept Dave was riffing on would catch something in Paul
| and out would come related (often hilarious) music. On SNL,
| he and Bill Murray did a great lounge pianist/singer duo,
| playing off one another and obviously not entirely rehearsed.
|
| I'll let you dig for links to that stuff. The digging is
| probably more fun than some presented example in this case.
| a9h74j wrote:
| Saw musical improve live in the 1990s. One keyboardist live
| to accompany. Not a musician so I can't say about expected
| chord changes vs. transposition, etc.
| Rayhem wrote:
| > Conversational affordances are things like digressions and
| confessions and bold claims that beg for a rejoinder.
|
| 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).
| bckr wrote:
| TFA uses "giving" and "taking" in an idiosyncratic way.
| Specifically, in terms of giving/taking _the stage_. That 's
| the purpose of the story about improv at the top.
| myself248 wrote:
| Yeah. This was the hardest thing for me to wrap my head
| around while reading. Even after the terms were put in
| context, it was Hard Work to continue forcing them into my
| mind.
|
| Eventually I just gave up on that and realized that the rest
| of the point was thoroughly useful without those terms.
| randallsquared wrote:
| This has a lot of good insight, but I was struck by how
| differently I experience
|
| > _"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."_
|
| The typical response to "What's up?" from myself and, uh, nearly
| everyone I know, is some variation on
|
| "Not much! What's up with you?" or
|
| "[trivial recent happening, quickly related] So, what's been
| going on with you?"
|
| ...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.
| naavis wrote:
| > "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.
|
| Maybe in the United States, but I would hardly call it
| universal.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Like saying "How are you doing?" in Europe is an invitation
| to tell your life story.
| swayvil wrote:
| "WHAT'S UP!?". The pre-emptive assault. The demand.
|
| Like he's swinging a club at you. The only reply is to raise
| your shield.
|
| Or you could do something clever. But either way your attention
| has been lassoed.
|
| Gotta be cleverer.
| randallsquared wrote:
| "What's up?" is the knock. They _could_ lead with whatever
| they really want to ask you or push at you, whether it 's
| telling you about their vacation to Ireland or asking you if
| they can hold a thousand this month, but instead they've
| given you the opportunity to not respond, or to say "Hey,
| really busy; talk later?" :)
| notRobot wrote:
| When I was younger and more pretentious I used to get annoyed
| at friends for answering "what's up?" with "nothing much"
| because in my head by asking that I was obviously fishing for
| conversation material so you should just bring up _something_
| that we can talk about.
|
| Something that happened recently or something that you heard
| about or something you remembered or something you are looking
| forward to, just... anything.
| swayvil wrote:
| I used to be that way too. Now I see that there are depths
| there that I didn't see. I was blind to my blindness. I try
| to keep my cool now. Reply with something soft and cool.
| guelo wrote:
| Well why are you putting it on them to come up with something
| to talk about? "Not much, sup with you?" puts it back on you.
| notRobot wrote:
| I used to only ask "what's up?" after I'd exhausted
| everything I had to talk about usually. I used to think a
| lot about dynamics like these lmao.
| kebman wrote:
| What's up?
|
| I'm playing with LEGO(r).
|
| I'm eating sushi. You?
|
| I'm in spaaaaaaceeeee but I'm separated from my module!!!
| Halp!
| noman-land wrote:
| It seems some people might be more comfortable sitting in
| silence and so they don't feel the need to talk about
| _anything_ as a way to break it. Maybe it's an
| introvert/extrovert thing.
| swatcoder wrote:
| > prompt someone to ask you that question back
|
| Huh. I'm glad this is not a thing in my circles. Being direct
| and exposing some vulnerability seems to work great for us.
|
| I known its just a custom that can't be analyzed too deeply,
| but what you describe sounds so timid and shy from the outside.
|
| Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly), if I picked up that
| someone was doing this, I'd assume they need a lot of special
| handling and ceremony to feel comfortable. It would take a lot
| for me to want to bother.
| aesthesia wrote:
| This reminds me of the "no hello" proposal for workplace chat
| messages (e.g. https://nohello.net/). It's much less of a big
| deal for personal communication, but I can understand wanting
| someone to just say what they want to say without a manual
| SYN/ACK first.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| It's a feeler (IMO way more descriptive than "doorknob") that
| lets you bail if you don't want to talk. Without it you may
| feel obligated to listen or have to be slightly rude. With it
| you have a range of options like "swamped on this project,
| catch up with you later" or such depending on circumstances
| to avoid straining a relationship.
|
| In async communication it's unnecessary though, people might
| do it by inertia.
| mike_hock wrote:
| Hey, you wouldn't believe who I just met in the elev
|
| TCP RST
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| I had colleague that was 10x developer but 0/10 communicator,
| if he didn't receive separate first message with "Hi, how is
| it going?" without me waiting for his answer before
| requesting something, he wouldn't reply.
|
| It was such a dead end for getting things done (he was
| productive on his things, but blocker for everybody else.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I like the "hello" before someone engages in a chat because
| this way I can confirm that i) I am available to talk and ii)
| the message is safe (i.e. I am not displaying in front of 200
| people and forgot to switch off IM).
|
| If someone just wants to send me an information, email is
| great for that.
|
| My personal order of contacts is snail mail - email - IM -
| phone - in person. Each of the steps is one order of
| magnitude of urgency greater than the previous one.
|
| There is probably also a cultural component.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If you want to know if the person can chat right now, you
| can always say "Oh, hello. Do you have time for a short
| chat right now?"
|
| Every other time when you don't need to know that, you can
| still not get all the problems of the empty "hello"
| message.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I always want to know that because I do not want to send
| messages when it is not a good time for that. Nor I want
| to receive any.
|
| A "hello" means it is "IM urgent" so it can wait for the
| moment I am OK to exchange.
|
| Like I said, this is also cultural - some cultures allow
| people to interrupt others, some not.
| watwut wrote:
| I don't want to wait there and stare in typing icon while
| you are typing and retyping and figuring out what you
| want to send.
|
| That is why hello is annoying. People are capable to talk
| immediately, but take forever to finish writing.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Try: "Oh, hello. Do you have time for a short chat right
| now about a database schema change?"
|
| I almost always have time to fight fires -- unless busy
| with a larger conflagration. I may or may not have the
| time to debate the finer points of table naming
| conventions however.
|
| Without context I might say yes and then have to _take it
| back_ once I discover the topic.
| krnlpnc wrote:
| I guarantee you are annoying people with this. "Hello"
| conveys no information, you might as well say "tag".
|
| "Hello, could we set a time to chat about xyz" lets the
| reader give a meaningful response when available (and
| _maybe_ thats immediate)
|
| I simply ignore hellos but happily respond to questions.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > i) I am available to talk and ii) the message is safe
|
| If I'm at work, I'm always going to be available to talk,
| and anyway, nothing is lost by them sending me what they
| want to say and me responding when I become available.
|
| I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't ever send messages
| that are unsafe for 200 of your colleagues to see.
| QuantumSeed wrote:
| As a developer who occasionally gets pulled in to help with
| urgent support issues, I dread bare hello messages. It gives
| me too much time to imagine a down site or some other
| critical event. Asking the question up front spares me a lot
| of stress.
| krnlpnc wrote:
| I'll add too that it's better to end a work convo with
| pleasantries than to begin one.
|
| "Hey I'm blocked on xyz, thanks anyways how was your
| weekend?"
|
| Is far more pleasant than
|
| "Hey how's the weekend? anyway I'm blocked on xyz"
| alimov wrote:
| I mostly agree, and think that In addiction to what you said
| "what's up" is basically like pinging someone to see if they
| are available so that some additional reason planning can occur
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tunesmith wrote:
| This is really cool but I think I need more examples of how to
| create good doorknobs.
|
| wait, did I just create one?
| tcgv wrote:
| Second that! I took a while to grasp the concept of "social
| doorknobs" while reading this text. I think it boils down to
| something people can use to open up conversational pathways and
| keep the conversation flowing.
| myself248 wrote:
| While reading this, I kept drawing parallels to how I like to
| teach. (I'm not a professional teacher, but I volunteer at a
| makerspace and nothing is more fun than watching someone
| grasp a new concept and use it to actually make something.)
|
| I tend to think that, in general, there's very little new
| under the sun, so most students are already equipped with
| analogies that will help them understand what I'm teaching.
| That is, if I can just figure out what they're familiar with
| and draw the appropriate parallels.
|
| Teaching, then, becomes an exercise in learning my student
| and trying to express analogies that they can grab onto.
| Which means sometimes throwing out a slow-ball so they have
| an easy hit, and seeing which metaphor they use to hit it
| with, which then gives me some information about how to
| proceed.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _That's why when psychologists want to jump-start friendship in
| the lab_
|
| ...wait, we can do what now?
| kentlyons wrote:
| Yes. And the author provides both a cite for an academic
| publication as well as one from popular media. (And it's not
| exactly new either - the paper was published in 97).
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| TIL we also can jump-start outgroup formation in the lab:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_group_paradigm
|
| (or should I have learned it much earlier? https://en.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Storie... )
| krupan wrote:
| 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."
|
| As a giver, I'd usually rather not be stuck in the "conversation"
| (more like, speech) that the taker is dominating.
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| 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.
|
| Many of encounters where I had to resist their "and you?"
| questions, as I saw an opportunity to expand on what they were
| saying.
|
| 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)
| DawnQFunk3 wrote:
| spawarotti wrote:
| This article reminds me of "The Church of Interruption", the best
| short article I ever read about communication styles:
| https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
| wallflower wrote:
| Wow, thanks for posting that. I am learning more about not
| interrupting now.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-21 23:00 UTC)