<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Conversational Alignment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2005/04/04/conversational-alignment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2005/04/04/conversational-alignment/</link>
	<description>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:24:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; More on language alignment &#124;&#124; April &#124;&#124; 2005</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2005/04/04/conversational-alignment/comment-page-1/#comment-31055</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; More on language alignment &#124;&#124; April &#124;&#124; 2005</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=234#comment-31055</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;d been meaning to follow up on last week&#8217;s post on conversational alignment but hadn&#8217;t gotten around to it. As I admitted in the livejournal comments on that post, I may have over reached in saying that reality coefficients had to be aligned to have a good conversation, because, as Dan pointed out, we can have good conversations with people with whom we disagree. I think the reality coefficient alignment is still relevant, because if the members of a conversation don&#8217;t agree that something is worth discussing, there won&#8217;t be a conversation, but it distracted from my point about language. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#8217;d been meaning to follow up on last week&#8217;s post on conversational alignment but hadn&#8217;t gotten around to it. As I admitted in the livejournal comments on that post, I may have over reached in saying that reality coefficients had to be aligned to have a good conversation, because, as Dan pointed out, we can have good conversations with people with whom we disagree. I think the reality coefficient alignment is still relevant, because if the members of a conversation don&#8217;t agree that something is worth discussing, there won&#8217;t be a conversation, but it distracted from my point about language. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; The Art of Conversation &#124;&#124; July &#124;&#124; 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2005/04/04/conversational-alignment/comment-page-1/#comment-3144</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; The Art of Conversation &#124;&#124; July &#124;&#124; 2006</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2006 02:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=234#comment-3144</guid>
		<description>[...] Conversation is a topic near and dear to my heart. Besides the post listed above, I have posts about the recipe for a good conversation, a late-night conversation with a friend, a surprisingly stimulating conversation at a party, thoughts on conversational alignment, and thoughts on the connections necessary for conversation. And those are only the posts I can remember off the top of my head. I would obviously love to understand better what leads to a good conversation. And looking back over those posts, I think perhaps the concept of flow is a good place to start. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Conversation is a topic near and dear to my heart. Besides the post listed above, I have posts about the recipe for a good conversation, a late-night conversation with a friend, a surprisingly stimulating conversation at a party, thoughts on conversational alignment, and thoughts on the connections necessary for conversation. And those are only the posts I can remember off the top of my head. I would obviously love to understand better what leads to a good conversation. And looking back over those posts, I think perhaps the concept of flow is a good place to start. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

