Tag: conversation

Comments on “On Great Conversation”

~ cafebedouin

This essay, “On Great Conversation,” feels like an extension, and frankly, better expression, of some of the ideas I was trying to get at with Principles of Interaction. They key points:

  • Conversation is (or should be) a co-creation of shared meaning.
  • Good conversation has new additions building on old, whereas bad conversation replaces what came before.
  • Bad conversation can take a variety of forms: parallel monologues, gerede (idle chatter that keeps us trapped in unproductive conversation), etc.
  • Small talks serves to calibrate conversation, so you can adapt to the styles of everyone involved.
  • Who in your life is a great conversationalist?

“The rabbinical tradition had a term for speech that diminishes rather than nourishes: “lashon hara.” While often translated as gossip, the concept encompasses any speech that’s ultimately harmful. Idle chatter can be understood as a form of lashon hara because it keeps us trapped in patterns that don’t challenge or nourish us. We come away from such conversations feeling vaguely depleted rather than energized.”

–Zohar Atkins, “On Great Conversation.” secondvoice.substack.com. July 1, 2025

Very few exceptions when you think of social media and whether it constitutes lashon hara.

“This is why conversations need onboarding time. Just as tennis players need a few practice shots to find their rhythm, conversations usually require several exchanges before participants discover their shared wavelength. The opening moves are often tentative, testing the waters. Can this person handle abstract ideas, or do they prefer concrete examples? Are they comfortable with disagreement, or do they need consensus to feel safe? Do they think by talking, or do they prefer to formulate thoughts before speaking? Great conversationalists are masters of this initial calibration. They quickly sense what kind of rally their partner is capable of sustaining. They might start with safer topics and gradually introduce more complex or personal themes as trust builds. They adjust their conversational style in real time, like a tennis player who notices their opponent is stronger on the backhand and begins feeding them more forehand shots to create better rallies.”

–ibid.

This is probably the best summary of the purpose of “small talk” I’ve ever seen.

“How many truly great conversations do you have in a week? How many people in your life can consistently engage you in the kind of dialogue that creates flow, where you lose track of time because you’re fully absorbed in the collaborative exploration of ideas?”

–ibid.

To tie this back to The Principles of Interaction, it’s pretty clear that good conversation doesn’t need to be with someone you know. But, if it is someone you don’t know, you have to go through the calibration process of small talk to get to good conversation.

Instead of focusing on why, what and how may be missing the point. You know if any conversation is good. The above provides a framework. If you don’t get to good conversation, then you need to think about talking to different people or recalibrating your conversational style or topics of consideration. It certainly simplifies how to go about improving your conversational environment.

Filter Failure & Critical Ignoring

~ cafebedouin

“As important as the ability to think critically continues to be, we argue that it is insufficient to borrow the tools developed for offline environments and apply them to the digital world. When the world comes to people filtered through digital devices, there is no longer a need to decide what information to seek. Instead, the relentless stream of information has turned human attention into a scarce resource to be seized and exploited by advertisers and content providers. Investing effortful and conscious critical thinking in sources that should have been ignored in the first place means that one’s attention has already been expropriated (Caulfield, 2018). Digital literacy and critical thinking should therefore include a focus on the competence of critical ignoring: choosing what to ignore, learning how to resist low-quality and misleading but cognitively attractive information, and deciding where to invest one’s limited attentional capacities.”

-Anastasia Kozyreva, et al. “Critical Ignoring as a Core Competence for Digital Citizens.” Current Directions in Psychological Science. Volume 0. 10.1177/09637214221121570

One of the red flags of conversation is that you have to give “both sides” consideration. Or, the person you are talking with suggests that you need to do more research in the topic, particularly if it is along the lines of their argument.

Here’s a radical idea. Arguments have to earn their place at the table. All opinions are not equally valuable, and if you want consideration, you have to do the work and not tell the people you are trying to convince to do the work for you. If your perspective is anti-vaccination, Earth is flat, etc., don’t be surprised when you are ignored.

I don’t have to care about your pet issue, particularly when it is objectively wrong. Even if you are right, about your religion, politics or conspiracy theory de jure, you aren’t entitled to anyone’s attention. You earn attention by caring about people, not ideas.

Or, to make an analogy, you are not entitled to sex with someone, just because you are lonely. What is true of the body is also true of the mind. Congress is based on consensus.

The Purpose of Dialogue

~ cafebedouin

Open Question: What is the purpose of dialogue?

  • People generally only change their minds when in conversation with someone that loves them. How many conversations are we having with people we love?
  • Maybe the point of conversation is to change our own minds. If we aren’t coming from that place, are we in dialogue at all?
  • Trying to change other people’s mind is often a futile exercise. If true, then why bother having any dialogue at all?

Related: Agree to Disagree or Fight, Really Reading Means Being Open To Change, Arguing for a Different Reality, Celebrating Our Differences, and others.

Third Place

~ cafebedouin ~ 1 Comment

“The third place is a concept which identifies places which are not home (first place) or work (second place).

As ‘informal public gathering places’, they are places of refuge, where people can eat, drink, relax, and commune in order to develop a sense of belonging to a place. They are gathering places where community is most alive and people are most themselves.

Third places are important because they act as ‘meditation between individuals and the larger society’ and increase a sense of belonging and community.

-Patricia Mou, “what is the third place (pt.1)” patriciamou.com.

She then talks about characteristics of a third place.

  • Neutral ground or common meeting place
  • Levelers or places that encourage, and are inclusive of, social and cultural diversity
  • Regular patrons
  • Low profile and informal places
  • Places that foster a playful atmosphere
  • A home away from home
  • A place where conversation is the primary activity
  • Places that are easy to access and accommodate various sedentary and active activities

How To Have A Good Conversation

~ cafebedouin

“1. Set up the conversational premise so you, and the other person, have easy outs, if it is not a good match.

2. Don’t assume the conversation will last an hour.  Rapidly signal what kind of conversation you are good at, if anything going overboard in the preferred direction, again to establish whether the proper conversational match is in place.

3. If you notice something you want to say, say it.

4. Be worthy of a good conversation…

…I would stress the basic point that most conversations are bad, so your proper goal is to make them worse (so they can end) rather than better.”

—Tyler Cowan, “How to have a good conversation.” Marginal Revolution. September 23, 2018.

One theory, if you cut down on conversations you don’t want, you’ll have more you do want. Another theory, you’ll just have fewer conversations, but the overall quality of your conversations will go up.

So, win/win?

The Church of Interruption

~ cafebedouin

“‘There are two conversational dogmas. They’re self-consistent, you can subscribe to either one, and if you do, you will be able to happily converse with anyone else in your church. They are the Church of Interruption –’

‘That’s mine, isn’t it? It doesn’t sound complimentary.'”

-Sam Bleckley, “The Church of Interruption.” SamBleckley.com. November 22, 2011.

Yeah, my church too.

The Danger of Small Talk

~ cafebedouin

“The Finnish don’t believe in talking bullshit.”

—Laura Studarus. “How the Finnish Survive Without Small Talk.” BBC.com. October 17, 2018.

Small talk is a social lubricant. It creates openings, fills in gaps in conversation, and eases partings. In environments with complex social networks that extend past our Dunbar numbers, social anxiety is a natural byproduct of the environment. Small talk eases this anxiety.

Gossip also has these features. It can be useful in communicating social standing in a group. It’s how reputations are made. But, it is can also be damaging if it becomes the focus of interaction, where what others think and will say about us within a group polices group behavior, leading to inauthentic lives.

Small talk has a similar problem. Sure, it can signal social connection and paper over awkward moments. But, it can also become a crutch that we rely on so much that we do it instead of making any kind of meaningful connection with others, which can easily heighten our feelings of social anxiety and disconnection.