= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on New Post version 2 (please read this ONLY if your last name beings with l–z) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (185)
First and foremost, the shifting of conversational topics, I would find very insulting. If you can't talk to me normally without desperately reaching for conversational topics, maybe we just shouldn't be talking.
Secondly, I would probably list intentionally avoiding conversational topics like politics. If you're not a blue or a green, I'd love to talk about politics with you. (And if you are a blue or a green, I don't really want to talk to you at all...) And if you don't like talking about politics, maybe we shouldn't be together, if I do.
Third, is probably this business about "emotional momentum". I had no idea what that even meant when I read it. I'm still not sure I do. I have never considered what "stage of conversation" I'm in. If I think of something that's relevant, I say it. It generally works pretty well for me.
I had no objection to the quote, but to the rest of it. The rest of it makes it seem like lukeprog's only goal is sex, particularly the words "totally works" and "optimized".
Ultimately conversation should flow, regardless of who you're talking to. If it flows, you don't need to worry about stilted rules like this, which is the primary source of my objection. I wouldn't want to talk to someone constantly worrying about what to say next - it would seem very forced, I'm sure.
As a sidenote, and perhaps I'm alone in this and perhaps I'm not, it's hard to tell - I am massively introverted. I don't know if that is a source of difference or not (I would imagine most other LWers are as well) but I thought I'd throw it out there.
The technique described is generally used when one or both parties have run out of interesting things to say on the topic at hand - it's a transitional technique. The interesting point is that it's possible to transition to arbitrary topics rather than there having to be some logical connection between the two. I don't see why you'd consider that 'desperate reaching', but suspect it has to do with the specific topics you're imagining someone switching to. Does it seem less objectionable if you specifically imagine someone transitioning to an arbitrary but interesting and engaging topic?
This seems... odd, to me, as an objection. Do you really expect every one of your friends to share every one of your interests, and you to share every one of theirs? Or is it just "topics like politics" that you're applying that expectation to? What do you mean by "topics like politics", and why is that category special?
If I'm understanding lukeprog correctly, this refers to monitoring your conversational partner and switching topics or modes if they seem to be losing interest, though that's a simplified description of the skill. I think this is also what you're describing by 'flow', and - importantly - it doesn't come naturally to everyone. To people to whom such skills don't come naturally, or people trying to communicate about the skills, breaking them down into explicitly-described sub-skills as lukeprog did is often quite useful.
No, not at all. I wouldn't at all enjoy a conversation that went along the lines of "Yeah, the weather's great outside, but I hear it's supposed to rain tomorrow." "Yeah, you know what that's exactly like? Aumann's Agreement Theorem". That's just absurd. Admittedly, that's a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were "completely unrelated" as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
No, I don't. And if the person I'm talking to doesn't want to talk about politics, that's fine. But I'm not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to - that's leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence. And I mean any topic really, just politics and religion are the two quintessential examples of "impolite" topics.
The problem with that example, as far as I can see, is that the transition is trying to force a level of engagement that hasn't been established yet, which would fail even if the topic being transitioned to did have some logical connection to the weather. A better example: Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone's cousin's roommates' sister's wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann's Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
Given that the topic being considered "impolite" implies that most people won't like most possible conversations on the topic, no, it's not based on no evidence - it's just based on evidence about people-in-general or people-in-a-given-culture rather than a specific person in particular, which is a reasonable starting point in figuring out how to approach them. (Yes, this pattern-matches with the pronouns debate that comes up here from time to time. The significant difference is that female LWers are likely to object to being called by male pronouns, whereas politics-liking conversationalists are unlikely to object to their conversational partners bringing up non-politics topics of conversation. The parallel of having to actually gather information about people to interact optimally with them is accurate, though.)
But if you used the phrase "That's exactly like", I think it would sound equally forced. Or at least it would to me.
I don't think it does. People generally love it if you agree with them - it's impolite because you don't always agree. Many people are happy to drone on for hours about their political beliefs, which is what makes it impolite. If you can be respectful about politics, I see no reason not to bring it up (if you want to). And if the other person can't be respectful, then that gives you (in my book, what would be) a significant reason to not pursue a relationship with that person.
At this point I think it's a matter of empirical testing - meaning, in this case, observing people, since the question is about what people do in the course of normal conversations.
This is a significant part of why I said "most possible conversations". I would guess that it's possible to have a political conversation with most people that they'll enjoy - but reliably doing so takes more information than you'll generally have about someone you just met or are in the process of meeting.