One thing that may help in reading the article (it helped me when I re-read it): whenever the author says "giver" and "taker", add a metaphorical "stage" before or after. "[stage] giver", "[stage]...
One thing that may help in reading the article (it helped me when I re-read it): whenever the author says "giver" and "taker", add a metaphorical "stage" before or after.
I definitely got confused at points what a giver and what a taker is as defined by the author. But I believe this is the intended metaphor given the preamble and at least to me it all made sense with "stage".
Thanks for sharing this article, I thought it was interesting. My intuition of how conversations flow is in line with this article, but it's nice to develop more of a vocabulary to understand the...
Thanks for sharing this article, I thought it was interesting. My intuition of how conversations flow is in line with this article, but it's nice to develop more of a vocabulary to understand the way we talk. I really like the term "affordances" in particular, and I appreciate the author's remark near the end of the article about the "false friend" of egocentric topic choice—the distinction between something being really "engaging" (in its vulnerability or personal significance) and "self-gratifyingly interesting" (solely in its personal appeal).
Really interesting article that has me really reevaluate how I'm going to do conversations in my day-to-day life. Discussion on HN (89 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32542260
Really interesting article that has me really reevaluate how I'm going to do conversations in my day-to-day life.
One of the YC commenters linked to this other short parable about conversation styles that I also found interesting : https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
@Adys - Why is your link to the Hacker News discussion instead of the article? Wouldn't it be better to link to the article and add the discussion in the text of your post?
@Adys - Why is your link to the Hacker News discussion instead of the article?
Wouldn't it be better to link to the article and add the discussion in the text of your post?
One thing that may help in reading the article (it helped me when I re-read it): whenever the author says "giver" and "taker", add a metaphorical "stage" before or after.
"[stage] giver", "[stage] taker", "giving [the stage]", "taking [the stage]"
I definitely got confused at points what a giver and what a taker is as defined by the author. But I believe this is the intended metaphor given the preamble and at least to me it all made sense with "stage".
Thanks for sharing this article, I thought it was interesting. My intuition of how conversations flow is in line with this article, but it's nice to develop more of a vocabulary to understand the way we talk. I really like the term "affordances" in particular, and I appreciate the author's remark near the end of the article about the "false friend" of egocentric topic choice—the distinction between something being really "engaging" (in its vulnerability or personal significance) and "self-gratifyingly interesting" (solely in its personal appeal).
Really interesting article that has me really reevaluate how I'm going to do conversations in my day-to-day life.
Discussion on HN (89 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32542260
One of the YC commenters linked to this other short parable about conversation styles that I also found interesting : https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
@Adys - Why is your link to the Hacker News discussion instead of the article?
Wouldn't it be better to link to the article and add the discussion in the text of your post?
I'm sorry, that's a copy-paste mistake; I always direct link and link to the HN discussion in comments. @cfabbro can you fix please?