I have long maintained that the real benefit of any conference is the unstructured social time, and the actual presentations are essentially extended conversation prompts to get people talking at...
I have long maintained that the real benefit of any conference is the unstructured social time, and the actual presentations are essentially extended conversation prompts to get people talking at lunch and over drinks. That's when you meet people, have interesting conversations, etc. The presentations could just as easily be put online.
This seems like a very specific situation that you went through, and it would be difficult for me to have an opinion on that event. However, I really like structured conversations because, other...
This seems like a very specific situation that you went through, and it would be difficult for me to have an opinion on that event.
However, I really like structured conversations because, other than writing, that is the only social situation in which I can excel. All kinds of unstructured situations are very challenging for me because they are inherently more fluid and complex. I cannot understand subtle social cues, turns of speaking, tone of voice, volume, adequate phrasing, etc.
A lot of times, unstructured situations that are supposed to put people at ease make me extremely insecure and paranoid. The rules are all implicit and punishment for non-conformity is usually more severe than in structured contexts, even more so because you cannot appeal a sentence that was not explicitly given. I get a lot of value from highly structured situations.
Structured conversations can also be extremely valuable in ensuring equity within the group. If you're a group doing some sort of decision-making, for example, having parameters that allow each...
Structured conversations can also be extremely valuable in ensuring equity within the group. If you're a group doing some sort of decision-making, for example, having parameters that allow each person to speak can ensure that the loudest or most aggressive voices don't dominate the conversation. I was part of a group where we would fluidly drop into "let's hear from everyone about this" which would start a quick whip around the circle, giving each person the chance to respond or state their position/thoughts.
A lot of the people who spoke in those moments tended to be more reserved or reflective. They weren't the kind to jump in during the more freewheeling parts of discussions, but the structure allowed them to still have the floor and give their perspective. It did a lot to help me understand that some people need to sit and listen and process before they speak and can't simply jump into a conversation in the middle of it. Structure yielded a fairness to different communication styles, and our group was better for it.
I have 5 friends. Most of them know me for 20 years or more. So they know how I function and that's mostly not an issue. For example, when I fail to get sarcasm they simply explain it to me, they...
I have 5 friends. Most of them know me for 20 years or more. So they know how I function and that's mostly not an issue. For example, when I fail to get sarcasm they simply explain it to me, they allow me to explain myself at length and understand that I'm usually very literal. They are also capable to interpret my minimal facial expressions and tone of voice.
I sometimes enjoy unstructured situations with them, misunderstandings still happen and it is difficult sometimes. It takes training to be my friend so that's why I have just a few. I don't think I'll ever make new friends, but I do have family.
It is usually best for me to remain silent in unstructured situations with people I don't know.
I have a similar experience. Completely unstructured social interaction is just miserable for me. I’m so stressed about the unregulated human-human interaction, I can’t get to the good stuff...
I have a similar experience. Completely unstructured social interaction is just miserable for me. I’m so stressed about the unregulated human-human interaction, I can’t get to the good stuff whether it’s work-related or other, deep real conversation. On the other hand most organized icebreaker activities make me want to retch. I’ve only had a few professional gatherings where there was just enough structure to ameliorated social awkwardness, but not so much that it derailed depth and quality. I think it’s a tricky balance to get right. People who can set that up effectively have a rare and valuable skill set.
Yeah... the problem with "ice-breaking" is that you can't force familiarity. I'd call that a structured strategy to generate unstructured interactions. Which is a problem because the idea of...
Yeah... the problem with "ice-breaking" is that you can't force familiarity. I'd call that a structured strategy to generate unstructured interactions. Which is a problem because the idea of forcing spontaneity is a contradiction in terms.
As someone who sometimes leads group discussions in events like that, I think the best possible outcome was that you left. There are some good reasons (you're seeing some posted here) for the...
Exemplary
As someone who sometimes leads group discussions in events like that, I think the best possible outcome was that you left. There are some good reasons (you're seeing some posted here) for the structured dialogue, but if that's not what you wanted leaving was a good choice. Challenging the leader and group to retool the hour to your wish isn't the classiest move, but there are sometimes people who do things like that and everyone is more comfortable when that person either goes along with the group/activity, or leaves to find something they like better.
A different option you could've taken was to join in the planned discussion, listening carefully to names and what people wanted to share, and then when it came to your turn to say your bit and then say, "I'm really grateful to have had this chance to be introduced to everyone here. I hope after the session today, say around 6 PM, you can all join me for beers or coffee at the pub/cafe around the corner - first round on me!"
This seems like a bit of an overreaction? I don't think introducing yourselves would've been that much of a problem. Additionally, the conversation would be previously dominated by people who get...
This seems like a bit of an overreaction? I don't think introducing yourselves would've been that much of a problem. Additionally, the conversation would be previously dominated by people who get there earlier, and this short pause gives them a chance to pop in.
I guess I just don't see the problem in this case. I think structured conversations can be annoying if they literally take up the whole time, but I really don't think it's too much for introductions to be made.
There’s room for both depending on the purpose of the meeting. During taught and semi-taught events, prompts are valuable tools for ensuring the groups stay conversationally clustered around the...
There’s room for both depending on the purpose of the meeting.
During taught and semi-taught events, prompts are valuable tools for ensuring the groups stay conversationally clustered around the intended objectives. Even during such an event, a good facilitator would recognize the need for social cohesion and build in time for unstructured discussion.
After just ten minutes of what I can only describe as conversational bliss, a woman walked in
Ah, there it is. She arrived late to her own party. Can’t read the room if you’re not in the room.
So the counter to your experience is that if I were an event organiser (to be consumed in future by the pandemic or not) and I’d planned out the session, then someone suggest we just don’t bother...
So the counter to your experience is that if I were an event organiser (to be consumed in future by the pandemic or not) and I’d planned out the session, then someone suggest we just don’t bother and we carry on chatting I’d object. Perhaps a middle ground would be to say yeh let’s resume the free form chat later.
To go even further I think walking out of that event because the organiser refused to comply is slightly immature. Of the 25, 22 stayed and I guess saw value in staying. I’d say there are far more opportunities at events to have free form chats (and I agree in their value), but it’s a balance right?
The structure (even if it’s terribly dry) puts people on a more even footing, people who may be less extroverted can at least tell the group their name and company without having to rely on being able to edge into a group chat. It breaks the ice and allows a greater understanding of everyone there rather than just the most social.
But then again it was a working lunch so I’m probably being too harsh!
I think structured conversations can have its benefits, mostly to give those who are too timid to hop into an already mature and actively participated conversation. Though I do hope that they'd...
I think structured conversations can have its benefits, mostly to give those who are too timid to hop into an already mature and actively participated conversation. Though I do hope that they'd allow you time to do non-structured conversations afterwards in that session, though.
This seems specific to in-person meetings or video chat, where each introduction takes time. Big structured meetings are often boring. I don't think there's any way to make them not boring that...
This seems specific to in-person meetings or video chat, where each introduction takes time. Big structured meetings are often boring. I don't think there's any way to make them not boring that also gives everyone a chance to speak, though breaking up into smaller meetings can help. Taking a few questions after a lecture can be good, but you don't want to make anyone talk who doesn't want to get up in front of the room; you'll just get boilerplate.
Sometimes people work around this by having a chat channel where you can talk during the lecture.
In an online forum, an introductions topic doesn't hurt anything.
I have long maintained that the real benefit of any conference is the unstructured social time, and the actual presentations are essentially extended conversation prompts to get people talking at lunch and over drinks. That's when you meet people, have interesting conversations, etc. The presentations could just as easily be put online.
This seems like a very specific situation that you went through, and it would be difficult for me to have an opinion on that event.
However, I really like structured conversations because, other than writing, that is the only social situation in which I can excel. All kinds of unstructured situations are very challenging for me because they are inherently more fluid and complex. I cannot understand subtle social cues, turns of speaking, tone of voice, volume, adequate phrasing, etc.
A lot of times, unstructured situations that are supposed to put people at ease make me extremely insecure and paranoid. The rules are all implicit and punishment for non-conformity is usually more severe than in structured contexts, even more so because you cannot appeal a sentence that was not explicitly given. I get a lot of value from highly structured situations.
Structured conversations can also be extremely valuable in ensuring equity within the group. If you're a group doing some sort of decision-making, for example, having parameters that allow each person to speak can ensure that the loudest or most aggressive voices don't dominate the conversation. I was part of a group where we would fluidly drop into "let's hear from everyone about this" which would start a quick whip around the circle, giving each person the chance to respond or state their position/thoughts.
A lot of the people who spoke in those moments tended to be more reserved or reflective. They weren't the kind to jump in during the more freewheeling parts of discussions, but the structure allowed them to still have the floor and give their perspective. It did a lot to help me understand that some people need to sit and listen and process before they speak and can't simply jump into a conversation in the middle of it. Structure yielded a fairness to different communication styles, and our group was better for it.
I have 5 friends. Most of them know me for 20 years or more. So they know how I function and that's mostly not an issue. For example, when I fail to get sarcasm they simply explain it to me, they allow me to explain myself at length and understand that I'm usually very literal. They are also capable to interpret my minimal facial expressions and tone of voice.
I sometimes enjoy unstructured situations with them, misunderstandings still happen and it is difficult sometimes. It takes training to be my friend so that's why I have just a few. I don't think I'll ever make new friends, but I do have family.
It is usually best for me to remain silent in unstructured situations with people I don't know.
I have a similar experience. Completely unstructured social interaction is just miserable for me. I’m so stressed about the unregulated human-human interaction, I can’t get to the good stuff whether it’s work-related or other, deep real conversation. On the other hand most organized icebreaker activities make me want to retch. I’ve only had a few professional gatherings where there was just enough structure to ameliorated social awkwardness, but not so much that it derailed depth and quality. I think it’s a tricky balance to get right. People who can set that up effectively have a rare and valuable skill set.
Yeah... the problem with "ice-breaking" is that you can't force familiarity. I'd call that a structured strategy to generate unstructured interactions. Which is a problem because the idea of forcing spontaneity is a contradiction in terms.
Yes. This is a good explanation.
As someone who sometimes leads group discussions in events like that, I think the best possible outcome was that you left. There are some good reasons (you're seeing some posted here) for the structured dialogue, but if that's not what you wanted leaving was a good choice. Challenging the leader and group to retool the hour to your wish isn't the classiest move, but there are sometimes people who do things like that and everyone is more comfortable when that person either goes along with the group/activity, or leaves to find something they like better.
A different option you could've taken was to join in the planned discussion, listening carefully to names and what people wanted to share, and then when it came to your turn to say your bit and then say, "I'm really grateful to have had this chance to be introduced to everyone here. I hope after the session today, say around 6 PM, you can all join me for beers or coffee at the pub/cafe around the corner - first round on me!"
This seems like a bit of an overreaction? I don't think introducing yourselves would've been that much of a problem. Additionally, the conversation would be previously dominated by people who get there earlier, and this short pause gives them a chance to pop in.
I guess I just don't see the problem in this case. I think structured conversations can be annoying if they literally take up the whole time, but I really don't think it's too much for introductions to be made.
There’s room for both depending on the purpose of the meeting.
During taught and semi-taught events, prompts are valuable tools for ensuring the groups stay conversationally clustered around the intended objectives. Even during such an event, a good facilitator would recognize the need for social cohesion and build in time for unstructured discussion.
Ah, there it is. She arrived late to her own party. Can’t read the room if you’re not in the room.
So the counter to your experience is that if I were an event organiser (to be consumed in future by the pandemic or not) and I’d planned out the session, then someone suggest we just don’t bother and we carry on chatting I’d object. Perhaps a middle ground would be to say yeh let’s resume the free form chat later.
To go even further I think walking out of that event because the organiser refused to comply is slightly immature. Of the 25, 22 stayed and I guess saw value in staying. I’d say there are far more opportunities at events to have free form chats (and I agree in their value), but it’s a balance right?
The structure (even if it’s terribly dry) puts people on a more even footing, people who may be less extroverted can at least tell the group their name and company without having to rely on being able to edge into a group chat. It breaks the ice and allows a greater understanding of everyone there rather than just the most social.
But then again it was a working lunch so I’m probably being too harsh!
I think structured conversations can have its benefits, mostly to give those who are too timid to hop into an already mature and actively participated conversation. Though I do hope that they'd allow you time to do non-structured conversations afterwards in that session, though.
This seems specific to in-person meetings or video chat, where each introduction takes time. Big structured meetings are often boring. I don't think there's any way to make them not boring that also gives everyone a chance to speak, though breaking up into smaller meetings can help. Taking a few questions after a lecture can be good, but you don't want to make anyone talk who doesn't want to get up in front of the room; you'll just get boilerplate.
Sometimes people work around this by having a chat channel where you can talk during the lecture.
In an online forum, an introductions topic doesn't hurt anything.