This is a linkpost for http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/engineer-diplomat/
I am skeptical that group conversations have a tendency to fall apart at when they get interesting because people have social reasons for doing so.
Rather, it feels like there's some expectations that group conversations are "supposed" to be lighter, and one-on-one / small group discussions are really meant for intimacy.
So it might not be so much that people deliberately leave to sabotage interesting conversations, but they see it as a signal to start one of their own in a small group, or politely leave to increase the perceived value of the discussion of those involved.
This resonates. When a group conversation became unexpectedly intimate, I've definitely felt that urge to bail - or interfere and bring the conversation back to a normal level of engagement. It feels like an intense discomfort, maybe a sense of "I shouldn't be here" or "they shouldn't have to answer that question."
I think that's often a good instinct to have. (In this context, where 'interesting' seems to mean not just a topic you think is neat, but something like 'substantive and highly relevant to someone' or 'involving querying a per...