http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/ Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:24:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-118427 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Balanced socializing || January || 2008 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:38:57 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/#comment-118427 [...] start talking about something else, the group has broken up and reformed with different people. The conversation flow is constantly being [...] [...] start talking about something else, the group has broken up and reformed with different people. The conversation flow is constantly being [...]

]]> http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-12332 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Pitching oneself || December || 2006 Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:28:33 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/#comment-12332 [...] This is a bit trickier to pitch, now that I think about it. Finding such people requires observing them for a while to see how they react in conversation. I’ll often throw lines out into the conversation that fall flat because they’re too obscure or tangential or referential, but occasionally somebody picks up on them, and that’s always a good sign. But for a conversation to continue long enough to notice such cues, it requires a venue where flow develops, as described previously. This pretty much can’t happen at parties. Or at bars. Or at most venues I can think of. Hrm. No wonder this is so hard. [...] [...] This is a bit trickier to pitch, now that I think about it. Finding such people requires observing them for a while to see how they react in conversation. I’ll often throw lines out into the conversation that fall flat because they’re too obscure or tangential or referential, but occasionally somebody picks up on them, and that’s always a good sign. But for a conversation to continue long enough to notice such cues, it requires a venue where flow develops, as described previously. This pretty much can’t happen at parties. Or at bars. Or at most venues I can think of. Hrm. No wonder this is so hard. [...]

]]> http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-12075 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Conversationalist || December || 2006 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:19:48 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/#comment-12075 [...] One of the skills I continue to work on is the art of conversation. This seems to be key to so many things I’m interested in, from management to communication to cognitive science. And it has the added benefit of being useful at parties! [...] [...] One of the skills I continue to work on is the art of conversation. This seems to be key to so many things I’m interested in, from management to communication to cognitive science. And it has the added benefit of being useful at parties! [...]

]]> http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-11476 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Group flow || November || 2006 Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:46:07 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/#comment-11476 [...] I think that a similar thing happens in groups of people. Books like The Society of Mind or Cognition in the Wild suggest that our minds act like groups of people, so perhaps groups of people may work like minds in this instance. When people are getting excited about something, that excitement feeds on itself, as if the whole group is getting into a state of flow (I’ve covered this in the context of conversations). But all it takes is one person to be negative to destroy the flow, and force the momentum to start over. The colloquial term is “party pooper”. It may seem as if they’re just one person, but by interfering with the network and multiplier effects of group enthusiasm, they can have a disproportionate negative effect. [...] [...] I think that a similar thing happens in groups of people. Books like The Society of Mind or Cognition in the Wild suggest that our minds act like groups of people, so perhaps groups of people may work like minds in this instance. When people are getting excited about something, that excitement feeds on itself, as if the whole group is getting into a state of flow (I’ve covered this in the context of conversations). But all it takes is one person to be negative to destroy the flow, and force the momentum to start over. The colloquial term is “party pooper”. It may seem as if they’re just one person, but by interfering with the network and multiplier effects of group enthusiasm, they can have a disproportionate negative effect. [...]

]]> http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-3302 Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Mike Murray on Hacking the Mind || July || 2006 Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:15:17 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/#comment-3302 [...] The Art of Conversation [...] [...] The Art of Conversation [...]

]]> http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-3168 Bryan Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:16:06 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/07/01/the-art-of-conversation/#comment-3168 I came across your blog from a Technorati search, and read this post with some excitement. I often find myself stumbling for the right things to say, or to fix an interrupted conversation, but you're right about the "flow" thing. And the issue of selflessness. I think a good conversation must be like a seed that waits for the right conditions, and grows heedlessly. There must first be the proper environment. Second, it has to come naturally...so much so that you lose yourself in the process. All bad conversations seem to be the result of bad timing, interruptions, or selfish intentions. I came across your blog from a Technorati search, and read this post with some excitement. I often find myself stumbling for the right things to say, or to fix an interrupted conversation, but you’re right about the “flow” thing. And the issue of selflessness. I think a good conversation must be like a seed that waits for the right conditions, and grows heedlessly. There must first be the proper environment. Second, it has to come naturally…so much so that you lose yourself in the process. All bad conversations seem to be the result of bad timing, interruptions, or selfish intentions.

]]>