|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
From Consuelo's link in another thread: "Good conversation is not only satisfying, it’s the first step toward changing the world," says Jay Walljasper, editor of Utne Magazine." As the pace and decibel of society increases, engaged conversation is in danger of being crowded out from the center of our lives."
I have some thoughts, but I'd rather wait and see what the rest of you have to say before putting in my 2¢. What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 180
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 180 |
I think he's absolutely right. Sitting with friends over a glass of beer or a cup of coffee and having a nice long jaw is a many splendored thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I agree with the sentiment, at least. I crossposted the following onto rec.org.mensa a few years ago. For reference: m.w is misc.writing. And, yes, I 'know' I misspelled 'rapport'! Most of it's a build up to the penultimate paragraph. Finally, yes, I know that many would quibble over whether commicating over the net qualifies as conversation.
Wrote this over on m.w. Got a few favorable responses.
At the risk of being labeled a spammer, troglodyte, or
worse, thought I'ld xpost it here as well.
[ Article crossposted from misc.writing ]
[ Author was keith green (simctr) ]
[ Posted on 8 Sep 1995 01:18:05 GMT ]
Only been on this group a few months.
The 'problem' of voluminous off-topic (and occasionally rude) posts
is one that has increased radically over the last few years in almost
every other group, and it's unsurprising to see that m.w has the same
'problem'. (But it's always existed in lesser degree for as long as
I can remember.)
The very best way to keep things on-topic is to compose intelligent,
interesting, well-written posts that are on-topic. When people post
things that you don't find interesting, just don't follow up. The
very best way to raise the caliber of the posts you read is to raise
the caliber of the posts you write.
Will it eliminate the problem? No. Will it help? I think so.
Moreover, it's the ONLY thing I've ever noticed to have a significant
effect on unmoderated groups.
But bear in mind that people use this medium both for its informational
value and its entertainment value. It's fun - at least for me - to 'talk'
about writing even when it doesn't pertain to anything I'm immediately
working on. Books of our childhoods, oxymorons, use of spell-checkers,
favorite poems, etc., are voluminous because they're interesting - at least
to some people.
-----BEGIN OF OFF-TOPIC SECTION-----
Proceed at your own risk. Your brain could explode from reading
this off topic gibberish. Your house could become haunted, your
spouse barren, your lawn overcome with crabgrass. Please read
no further, if you find off topic posts disinteresting.
From the time I read my first post over the net, I've been fascinated -
infatuated, even - by the conversational, utterly unclinical nature of
the forum. God, I love this place!
I think other people love it, too.
Some people like to meet other people - that's fun, too - not just meet
them, but MEET them - get to know them, develop a repoire, and all that
silly stuff. Some want relaxation from a hectic day. Some want
excitement from a boring day. Others still are looking for recognition.
Some just wanna talk. Some just want to show off. Some want to be helpful.
Some want to be helped. Some are on a crusade. Some are out to get
saved. Several are just looking to show how superior they are. Many have
an axe to grind (and will never hesitate to throw out a barb they know
will lead into an off topic discussion). Many just wanna be part of 'it'.
And many are just bored and lookin' fer somethin' ta do.
And you will find every single one of these personalities in almost
every newsgroup - different names, different individuals, but
uncannily similar personalities.
Whatever.
I really think that most people just wanna have a conversation.
We seem to have lost the art of conversation somewhere along the wayside.
Maybe we don't have time for it or maybe we just forgot how.
And I think many of us miss it and we're conspiring (consciously or
subconsciously, I'm not certain) to bring it back. We all want to
be part of that conversation - that Great Conversation that those
philosopher guys keep referring to - but we don't quite know how.
[Maybe that's what the Great Link symbolizes in DS-9? Nyaa.]
[P.S. I don't think the real reason people get annoyed is because
they have to wade through so much 'garbage' to find their 'pearls'.]
--
My employers disagree with everything I say, keith green, nan
write, think, believe, feel, do, or plan to do. <kgreen@ida.org>
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
True conversation can only occur where the interlocutors are of a similar intelligence, general experience and, particularly, education. The loss of the "classical" educational model is probably responsible for there being so much less conversation than there used to be, since the elements of rhetoric were part of that model. How many people who you've spoken to in recent times have had trouble framing a sentence or following a theme to its conclusion in a logical way?
Except in the most general social sense, most "conversation" I hear these days is basically two arguments or points-scoring efforts going on at once.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 87
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 87 |
I think that a good conversation can happen between people of dissimilar education, experience and intelligence, however, folks need to refrain from having a superior attitude and be open to hearing and learning from someone "different". This, unfortunately, is all to lacking today, and I find the competition and points-scoring attitude abounding in comversations I overhear. Being stubborn and opinionated are ok, but an open mind to listening is basic to a good talk. Educated people, intelligent people, can make a conversation really bad quickly with a lack of ability to listen. It is particularily annoying to me to be in a conversation where the other person is constantly relating the discussion to her own life, his own kid, her own job, home, car, "ME, ME, ME"-ing all over the place and never truly responding to the conversation in a thoughtful way. Just a quick example: Yesterday a co-worker was telling me about a man in our building whose attention concerns her. She feels somewhat threatened by him - nothing overt has happened yet, but... Well, some people would immediately launch into a story about how that happened to them, etc. I could have done that as well, but I was more concerned with how she might handle what she perceives as "potential" threat. Not that I am the world's greatest listener, not meaning to toot my own horn - just that the response I'm looking for in conversations is not "ME", it's more "US"... And I do admit to a problem dealing with people whose intelligence appears to be less than my own - and I even admit that sometimes I think it's just about everyone! I have met and enjoyed lot of folks whose experience and education were more, or less, than mine, or just different, and as long as there is some functioning intelligence I always hope to have an enlightening exchange. Then there are the times I just shut up and let them have their say! Now that I've made myself out to be some kind of paragon of conversational virtue, I'll go eat some lunch and hope I don't have to talk to anyone on the way! 
What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy? -Ursula K. Le Guin, author (1929- )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
Vanguard, your middle paragraph is so right. It's obviously an international issue. Is there a word to describe that kind of person? It's not exactly self-centred, because some I know are in all other respects the kindest people you could meet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
There is irony in the fact that you have related a personal event to make your point that relating personal events do not lend to good conversation.
Hehe. It was an appropriate anecdote, though. And maybe some of the points made by your colleagues were appropriate, as well. Not having been there, I couldn't say.
I agree with your point that "an open mind to listening is basic to a good talk." And I also think that conversation is possible between people of divergent interests and educational levels - perhaps Pfranz's post was a bit of deliberate hyperbole? Nevertheless, while I disagree with the extreme view, I agree with the thrust of what he said. It is often difficult for people of different intelligences, experiences, education, backgrounds to actually savor one another's conversation.
I find myself - despite my best intentions - becoming irritated at conversation with people when I believe they are not up to the task. I try to tone things down and communicate on their level, but I often feel condescending when I do so (because I *am* being condescending). OTOH, as I surround myself with friends who are great deal smarter than I am, I feel quite fortunate that they condescend to explain their opinions in a way that even I can understand.
As for the point-scoring that both of you mention, I wonder whether this is an effect of two things - really the same thing in two venues. First, the fact that our school systems (especially hs and university systems) have professors who make their livings largely by being iconoclasts. There is a bit of (poor) reasoning that makes people think "Well, Professor X says some outlandish - and largely correct - thing and he's widely recognized as brilliant, so if I say something outlandish I'll be perceived as brilliant." -- Example: DeGenova wishing aloud that Mogadishu was repeated a million times (18 US soldiers died, and an estimated 300-1000 Somalians ... uh, yea, *that* would sure teach the Americans).
Second, the exact thing has happened on the net where some of the bright pioneers were a bit terse, sardonic, and yes occasionally downright acerbic, so the newcomers enter, see what's going on and think to themselves, "See? All I have to do is act obnoxious and people will perceive my intelligence."
It's largely because of my perhaps faulty perceptions in this regard that I've long been an advocate for the rehabilitation of honest ignorance.
I think this is related to the post about the mice who use "tools" to prevent themselves from getting lost. Often in conversation, and in general interaction with others, we respond to intelligence only when we recognize it. Here these mice have been doing this for who knows how long and we only just figured out they were doing it. Same with the bee-dances. When we talk with someone else, we like to feel that something is being communicated. We all have our comfort zones. The farther from the zone, the less we recognize and the more uncomfortable we feel. Sometimes we exercise docimasy as a way of doing in conversation what the mouse does in the maze - to get our bearings in the local terrain. But it takes some effort. And it's not perfect. The problem remains. How do you recognize intelligence when it manifests itself in a form with which you are unfamiliar?
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
friends who are great deal smarter than I am, I feel quite fortunate that they condescend to explain their opinions in a way that even I can understand.
Thanks, tsuwm. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 67
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 67 |
"How do you recognize intelligence when it manifests itself in a form with which you are unfamiliar?"
This made me think about how the human civilization has been interested in the prospect of finding/meeting a truly 'alien' intelligence, while disregarding the different types of intelligence that might be found in their fellow beings and being resistant in considering such thoughts/concepts as intelligent. If we haven’t yet figured out how to identify with “intelligence when it manifests itself in a form with which you are unfamiliar,” how do we suppose we’ll be able to handle something ‘alien,’ and why are we even so excited about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I confess to being excited about the prospect myself.
SF writers have pondered the question. There's a vignette in Jack Chalker's Nathan Brazil series (the first one) about an encounter with aliens who are so ... well ... ALIEN that their intelligence is not something we easily percieve.
There's the one ST:TNG episode where they meet the aliens who communicate by metaphor, but they don't figure it out till near the end of the show. There are probably other episodes with similar idea that elude me for the moment. Also, in B5 there was that race of aliens who seemed to communicate in a weird way. While I think these are interesting ideas to play with, I'm not so sure they're applicable.
The mouse, after we understand the behavior, really seems to be doing something we recognize as intelligent. Not so sure about the ant behaviors, which could be purely mechanical. OTOH, we interpreted previous mouse behaviors - or failed to interpret them in a way - based on some false assumptions. (or that's my take). maybe it's the same with the ants.
Kinda like the problem they had with understanding egyptian heiroglyphs prior to the rosetta stone -- they made some prior notion that the heiroglyphics were pictographic, when they were really phonetic. (aside to the aside - chinese, while mostly pictographic, does have a class of words that are sorta phonetic -- I don't recall the details, but they're like pairs of symbols where the pair take on the sound of one of the characters - but a completely different meaning.)
I think part of the thing about recognizing intelligence in other people is being patient enough to figure out what it is they're saying or doing and why they're saying or doing it. I don't believe that all people are equally intelligent, or even that all have equal potential. (I do, however, think that the vast majority of people are - mentally if not emotionally - capable of understanding the vast majority of idea that humanity has come up with.)
Note that I don't think that I'm particularly well-adapted to understanding other people or recognizing their intellect. Nor is it that I make some conscious effort to evaluate other people's intelligence - or even my own. However, some hypotheses suggest themselves to me when communication reveals a process a little too low on the S and a little too high on the N. I don't think this is a bad thing to do, so long as one tests the hypotheses. But there is a problem in general with having the patience - really the diligence -to be willing to question these tentative assumptions.
k
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,350
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
773
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
