|
When I was little, my mom used to host pretend-parties with us kids and teach us general rules of conversation.
Some of them were fairly logical...
"What's considered a 'successful conversation' depends on your goal for the conversation. If you have something you want to accomplish and you think your conversation partner can help you get there, then the goal of the interaction is to communicate what you want, learn what they want in return for helping you, and come to an agreement. That's more of a negotiation than a conversation, but it can be done via conversation -sometimes more easily than an official business negotiation. And it doesn't have to be business. For instance, if you think your brother looks cute in the lace apron, and you want him to wear it when you're cooking together, that's not business, but it is a negotiation. So your conversation with him about it is successful if you convince him to agree. But if your goal for the conversation was to divert his attention away from the fact that the chocolate chip cookies are all gone and he's upset about it, then even if he agrees to wear the apron, as long as he's still upset it's not a successful conversation."
Or maybe not those exact words, but something close.
Some of them made no sense...
"When holding a conversation with someone you haven't met before, you're treading on a cultural landmine, because in some regions the polite thing to do is establish the ties you may have by finding connections in common, and the fastest way to do that is to start with the connections you have that are most prominent or well-known, as those are the ones most readily recognized. Opening with this is considered giving the other person respect, because it assumes they must be important enough to naturally recognize whoever you name. But in other regions, that is considered "name-dropping" and is rude, braggart behavior that will put them off. There are multiple contradictions like this which make it difficult to begin a conversation with someone you don't know -but if you stay silent and wait for them to give you a cue, you come off as taciturn and difficult to speak with. This is why introductions are very helpful, as the third party who knows both of you will give you both some clues in the introduction. Failing a helpful third party -and sometimes you will be introduced by someone who isn't very good at it, and there won't be any useful clues in the introduction- it depends on the image you're trying to convey. If you can afford to appear approachable and informal, the simplest solution is to start by essentially introducing yourself, and straight-up asking some of these basic questions of the other party. For instance, bluntly saying that since you don't know them you want to check what they're comfortable with talking about before you step on a conversational landmine with them, and asking if they have any subjects they prefer to avoid, or areas they can talk about all day. But you have to be careful with this, because it establishes you as someone they can just walk up to any time and start talking with, and they will assume that if they cross one of YOUR boundaries, you will be able to alert them to it without getting emotional about it. So if you are going to react emotionally to what you consider a "personal question" that "crosses the line" you can't start like that. Because what you consider personal and crossing your line, they won't know. Further, for whatever reason, being bluntly open about what you don't know and asking them to fill you in seems to establish you as a sociable person, so if you need strong boundaries and don't want to be approached much, you can't ask so simply."
Which makes no sense.
But there you go.
Lessons from my mother about conversation.
 (0)  (0) |
|
process error 404
Idk, never been diagnosed, I just worry too much about what people think of me.
