kind of a big deal/grok/understanding.. be\cause this:
love the explanation in this video (shared on fb by erica) at 2 min:
we’re sacrificing conversation for mere connection..
so what is the problem in having a conversation – well ..
2 min – it takes place in real time and you can’t control what you’re going to say..
there’s no editing ourselves.. in order to present ourselves… we are in the raw, in the vulnerability of context.. swimming in and embracing uncertainty..
if we’re not able to be alone… we’re only going to know.. how to be lonely..
talk to self. talk to others.
and a commenter on erica’s post suggests:
true connection happens when there are no distractions.
getting into echo/anechoic chamber ness.. and the ability to remain authentic while attaching.. ness
so – conversation – as connecting with self and with others – in the space of alive\ness, of improv\e…
We didn’t have to talk then, and that is real friendship. Never uncomfortable with silence, which, in its welcome form, is yet an extension of conversation.
incredible thing we do during convo – by Ed Yong:
When we talk we take turns, where the “right” to speak flips back and forth between partners. This conversational pitter-patter is so familiar and seemingly unremarkable that we rarely remark on it. But consider the timing: On average, each turn lasts for around 2 seconds, and the typical gap between them is just 200 milliseconds—barely enough time to utter a syllable. That figure is nigh-universal. It exists across cultures, with only slight variations. It’s even there in sign-language conversations.
Conversations have a far greater number of possible responses, which ought to saddle us with lengthy gaps between turns. Those don’t exist because we build our responses during our partner’s turn. We listen to their words while simultaneously crafting our own, so that when our opportunity comes, we seize it as quickly as it’s physically possible to.
“When you take into account the complexity of what’s going into these short turns, you start to realize that this is an elite behavior,” says Levinson. “Dolphins can swim amazingly fast, and eagles can fly as high as a jet, but this is our trick.”
The typical gap was 200 milliseconds long, rising to 470 for the Danish speakers and falling to just 7 for the Japanese. So, yes, there’s some variation, but it’s pretty minuscule, especially when compared to cultural stereotypes.
wow.. so resonating.. today.. everyday
they uncovered what Levinson describes as a “basic metabolism of human social life”—a universal tendency to minimize the silence between turns, without overlaps
The brevity of these silences is doubly astonishing when you consider that it takes at least 600 milliseconds for us to retrieve a single word from memory and get ready to actually say it. For a short clause, that processing time rises to 1500 milliseconds. This means that we have to start planning our responses in the middle of a partner’s turn
Pessimists among us might view this as the ultimate indictment of conversation, a sign that we’re spending most of our “listening” time actually prepping what we are going to say…But really, *this work shows that even the most chronic interruptor is really listening.
article found/linked here:
I pause for as much as 3 whole seconds before speaking, making me a natural, born follower
I believed “conversation” meant one person spoke, other people listened to what they were saying, reflected on the implications and responded in a way that elaborated, questioned, or integrated these prior points; conversation as collaborative sense-making.
After years of hyper-rational attempts at conversation I began to realise it doesn’t work this way. People don’t really listen to each other:
(don’t really listen to each other link is from the above)
*Yeah, sorry chronic interrupters but I draw a distinction between “listening”for the best time to interrupt and listening to the content of what the person is saying.
To participate in society I had to bring my response time down to regular-person tolerable levels, and, even though it seemed terribly impolite, to interrupt people like everyone else did.
The way people in these groups described this phenomenon was that these folks possessed “Leadership” — a mystical quality connected to rightness and an oft-proposed solution to all manner of problems. In practice leadership meant that the “leaders” did most of the talking.
oh man .. just today.. people (like jon and john and..) listening to kelly on self-directedness..because she had smooth words.. and thinking about the whole idio jargon thing ..first resonating with adam.. like: speak my way if you want me to listen..
this is why we need a mech to listen to all the voices.. all the idios.. we need to disengage from this elite.. speak my language or you don’t have a voice.. ness
“followers”, possessed sufficient enthusiasm for the role the leader played or perhaps sufficient smarts for knowing when to keep quiet.
The nearest substitute for natural leadership was to oblige people to listen to me through positional authority. This meant teaching.
Young dewy-eyed teachers believe that teaching precipitates learning. Old, grizzled teachers know that teaching is mostly crowd-control and improv theatre.
As conversation commences we select a status vis-a-vis the other participants.
or one is bestowed
Viewed through the lens of status: Hacky-sack groups guaranteed members generous min standards of dignity. When someone felt their status creeping too high, they dutifully paid their status taxes and stopped talking. The Swedens of status; Leadered groups lack a safety net and they only sure way to get one’s needs met was to compete for, and leverage status into more fulfilling roles and greater autonomy.
The decline of traditional sources of meaningfulness — ..leaves modern people empty on the inside, wandering the wasteland of late stage capitalism eking out meaningfulness from less savoury sources…Leadership fills this void
I needed a clean break. A third way. Neither leading nor following, neither conditioning nor being conditioned.
With luck you’ll find yourself playing conversational hacky-sack, listening for more than the opportunity to interrupt, and treating status as an ironic game rather than the core of your identity..t
2 convos that io dance.. as the day
ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…].. a nother way
Telling Is Listening: Ursula K. Le Guin on the Magic of Real Human Conversation
Maria Popova (@brainpicker) tweeted at 6:58 AM – 26 Jan 2018 :
“Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer; they feed energy back and forth and amplify it. They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it.”
Remembering Ursula K. Le with some of her finest: https://t.co/yu8PklvDl6 (http://twitter.com/brainpicker/status/956888960483110914?s=17)
Live, face-to-face human communication is intersubjective. Intersubjectivity involves a great deal more than the machine-mediated type of stimulus-response currently called “interactive.” It is not stimulus-response at all, not a mechanical alternation of precoded sending and receiving. Intersubjectivity is mutual. It is a continuous interchange between two consciousnesses. Instead of an alternation of roles between box A and box B, between active subject and passive object, it is a continuous intersubjectivity that goes both ways all the time
The living tongue that tells the word, the living ear that hears it, bind and bond us in the communion we long for in the silence of our inner solitude.
wondering about beyond words ness