2001.09/05 Conversation Anatomy

EXCERPTED FROM MESSAGE TO VLADMIR GLUZMAN

} Heya, Kim!

Howdy, Vlad!

} It was great hanging out in Pismo Beach yesterday! BTW, I'm about to shoot
} a major compliment your way. Y'know every time we hang out somewhere, I
} can't help but notice and be impressed by your ability to establish
} rapport and connect with the people and the place where we are hanging.

Thanks!  I like people, and they like me.  

} It's actually much like what the psychiatrist dweeb describes about the
} Dalai Lama. It's damned impressive! And also, thank you, as this makes all
} the places we visit into really great experiences. :-) Remember how you

Well, in the choice between a great experience and a bland one, I usually
favor the former.  ;-)

} said to remind you to have me help with the next project you work on?
} Well, remind me to ask you to be a travel partner next time I travel! This
} is ironic, BTW, as I think it's your location-independence that makes this
} happen.

Hey!  Travelling would be a great fun.  You know, I'd definitely be up for
holding some of our meetings in new locales.  We could not only check the CA
coast but also visit places within nearby flying distance!  I've never been
to Seattle, or Toronto, or...  We could even make a weekend of it to give
us time to explore.  

} How was the Operation Pick-Up-Hermans? Hope you're not in too much pain
} from not sleeping! Anything of interest going on?

Sadly, it was botched by my mistiming.  I called up United and they said the
flight was on time; in reality it was EARLY!  So the Hermans et al ended up
waiting for a half-hour or so for me to get there.    As for sleep, I'm
not getting very much of it 

} So, several questions and thoughts I wanted to shoot your way, as they've
} been brewing in my head, and are just about ripe. These cover all sorts of
} topics, and are not necessarily related. Feel free to answer them in any
} sequence and in any groupings you choose.
} 
} First thing, I wanted to ask you about techniques for being the leading
} participant in a conversation. Several things about this sort of situation
} have struck me and really thrown me off. One of the things I've noticed is
} that you don't get as much response from the participants. The extreme
} example of this being when you're addressing a huge crowd of people -- you
} get very little status info back from them as to how the "connection" is
} doing. The opposite extreme is when two people are having a heated
} discussion -- each has very good, and very up-to-date information on what
} the status of the connection is. I suppose *a* solution here is to look

Hmmm...  btw, there are ways to assess the "connection" to groups of people
as well as to individuals.  There are a whole host of non-verbal cues that
can be applied just as effectively to masses: visual acuity, fidgeting,
yawning, head bobbing, etc.

Of course, crowd assessment and management takes practice, and is usually
quite difficult for the speaker, since they are often dealing with other
things, e.g. their topic, stagefright, the presentation, etc.  A good way to
learn how to "read a crowd" is to go to where someone is speaking and then
just observe each audience member one at a time.

Leading a conversation is often an just an exercise in parallel processing.
In addition to being a participant you are also a guide, and public speaking
throws on additional tasks to the process queue.

} for more subtle cues; also, perhaps, to make sure to intersperse your
} soliloque with little 'pings', like jokes etc not only to make sure people
} are listening, but to keep their interest. Another point of wierdness for
} me is structure -- as in the flow from topic to topic and the flow from
} mode to mode (by mode I mean, story-telling to questioning to joking to
} discussion). I've found a few times that conversations where I had entered
} a kind of leading role just kind of sputtered out or were led into
} seriously wierd territory because I didn't manage this flow correctly. I
} suppose some helpful techniques here may be good connection/transition
} mechanisms between topics/modes. Also, perhaps certain kinds of flows work
} better than others...

Wowsers.  Well, conversation is a pretty big topic and I'm not certain what
specifically you are asking about.  However, here are some ideas that seem to
be in the ballpark: 

/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | The Mike: or, Who is talking
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

The simplest and perhaps most useful idea to guiding a conversation is that
of "The Mike", namely that only one person has the microphone and should be
talking at any given time.  In large gatherings the Mike is usually a
concrete thing: an actual staff or baton, or "the chair recognizing the
honorable so and so". 

Normally as a conversational participant we follow a simple algorithm, which
is 
  P_1 = Talk about something when we have the Mike

When guiding a conversation, it is important to also manage the movement of
the Mike.  The easiest algorithm is:
  G_a = Clearly hand off The Mike when we are done speaking
  G_1 = P_1 + G_a

Mike handoff can be done in a wide variety of ways, including but not limited
to: 
  Verbal: asking a question, expressing interest, etc.  (Note that kids have 
  it made.  It is socially acceptable for them to say: "Tell me a story!"
  Talk about clear Mike handoff!  ;-)
  Somatic: gesturing in a person's direction, looking them in the eye with
  eyebrows raised, etc.  (This is easily done in a mirror.  When you can
  gesture to yourself and feel like you should respond, then you've got it
  down pat.)
  Rhythmical: in some conversational styles the timing between Mike switches
  is pretty standard, e.g. banter.  In these cases one can just stop talking 
  after the appropriate amount of time and someone else will pick up the
  Mike.  In fact, you should do so, because they are expecting to get it.
  Sequential: This special case really only applies in groups, where everyone
  gets the Mike for a duration in a sequence.  People telling their names,
  everyone responding to a question, etc.

It happens quite frequently in a conversation that the Mike is Dropped.  That
basically means that someone has stopped talking and it is unclear who should
speak next or what they should say.  So we can expand the algorithm further
by: 
  G_b = Pick up the Mike when it is Dropped (i.e. pause to see if someone
  else picks it up, and then if no one does then pick it up and start /
  resume conversation) 
  G_c = Don't Drop the Mike (which you should't be doing if you are following
  G_a anyway, but hey, it's important enough to state again.  ;-)

Something to note is that Releasing the Mike is different than Dropping the
Mike.  Oftentimes in a group conversation one will open up a topic and then
release the Mike, i.e.  "So what do you guys think about yaddah?"  In this
case you've clearly ended your turn at speaking, but who specifically will
pick up the Mike next is unknown.  This is a fine thing to do.  Dropping the
Mike is like: "So I hear you've been taking conversation classes."  "Yes."

Anyway, so the algorithm so far is:
  G_2 = P_1 + G_a + G_b + G_c

/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Topical Flow: or, What to talk about
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

Once conversing becomes logistically smooth, the next natural step is to
focus on the Topic.  Let's look at the topical flow of the rational
conversation: 

Conversation                                           Conversation 
Initiated                     Topic(s)                 Concluded
(greetings,    -> [Initiated, Discussed, Concluded] -> (goodbyes, 
small talk,             [Changed, Destroyed]           planning, 
etc.)                        [Related]                 etc.)

Decent conversationalists will follow the straightforward algorithm(s): 
  P_a-1 = Discuss any topic that's been initiated
  P_a-2 = Conclude any topic after it's been discussed
  P_a-3 = Initiate a new topic when a topic has been concluded
  P_a = P_a-i  (using Einstein Summation Notation, of course   ;-)

Now, good conversationalist will keep around a Related SubTopic Stack, i.e. 
  Main Topic A Initiated                  Main Topic A Concluded
  SubTopic 1 Initiated                      SubTopic 1 Concluded
    SubTopic 2 Initiated                  SubTopic 2 Concluded
      ...                                                ...
        SubTopic N Initiated          SubTopic N Concluded
                        Topic A In Discussion

In this case any or all of the N SubTopics of the Main Topic can be In
Discussion at the same time, and they can be initiated and concluded en
masse.  Note that as a rule of thumb all the topics in a stack should be
clearly related, i.e. with good associativity not only to the Master Topic
but also to pairwise to each other in sequence on the stack.

Thus, a more accurate flow chart is:

Con    Main Topic A    Main Topic B    Main Topic C    Con
Ini ->   RSS of A   ->   RSS of B   ->   RSS of C   -> Con

This leads us to a more complex formulation:
  P_b-1 = Evaluate a new topic.  If not related to RSS_n and the current Main
  Topic, purge the current RSS.  Push onto the RSS.
  P_b-2 = Discuss the SubTopics on the RSS, favoring the More Recent,
  Interesting, and Important.
  P_b-3 = Pop any SubTopic off the RSS that has been concluded.
  P_b-4 = Open a new Main Topic when the RSS is empty.

Quite often a topic will Change without the previous Topic being concluded,
or sometimes even discussed.  The free-flow of topic Change causes people no
end of grief, because a) people want closure and b) people become fixated on
a particular topic.  This leads to:
  P_c-1 = Try to follow topic.  If someone is changing topics willy-nilly to
  the dismay of others, hand the Mike to them less. 
  P_c-2 = Use topical change sparingly.  There are times when it is the
  preferred method, though, e.g. from a topic sensitive to person A that
  person B (not knowing) has inadvertently initiated.
  P_c-3 = Avoid returning to topics that have been Changed from.  Unless the
  topic is important, let it go and create new ones.

There are many ways to inadvertently Destroy a Topic, and these should be
avoided AT ALL COSTS.  Topical Destruction includes but is not limited to:
  Insulting a speaker 
  Scoffing at an idea
  Actively not listening
  Visibly showing disinterest
  Being impatient
Instead, one should employ Topical Affirmation:
  Respecting all speakers
  Giving every idea the benefit of the doubt
  Actively listening
  Visibly showing interest
  Being patient
Note that good arguments will avoid Topical Destruction; it is possible to
maintain a good topical flow even when people strongly disagree.

  P_d-1 = Under no circumstances destroy a topic.  Changing topics, even
  forcefully, is always preferable.
  P_d-2 = Employ Topical Affirmation.
  P_d-3 = When a speaker uses Topical Destruction on someone else, check them
  with a social cue (i.e. if they scoff, say, "Well, maybe there is something
  to the idea.  Let's hear it out.").  If they persist, don't hand the Mike
  to them.

Anyway, it turns out that guiding a conversation from a topical standpoint is
really a direct outgrowth of becoming a good conversational participant.  It
entails the clear and direct use of Topical Markers, i.e. indicators that a
topic is being initiated or closed, and the smooth transfer between topics.

A good heuristic to employ when handing off the Mike is to always present a
clear topic to the next speaker.  That way people feel comfortable knowing
what to talk about.  Thus, 
  P_2 = Talk about the topic In Discussion when handed the Mike 
        + P_a + P_b + P_c + P_d
and then
  G_3 = P_2 + G_a + G_b + G_c  

Lastly, there are specific techniques for dealing with the ATopical, but
since this is atypical, we'll save it for later.  ;-)

/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | The Glass Head: or, How we converse
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

People have models inside their heads, and when they speak, they are doing so
from the perspective of their model.  When people listen, they try to fit the
topic into their known models.  When people learn, they are constructing new
models or actively allowing the modification of old ones. 

Philosophically speaking, effective communication involves the transfer of
these models between heads.  That means that one wants to not only be aware
of our own models but also understand the models of others, and then to be
able to describe one in terms of the other.  A tall task.

An intermediate step along this path of direct modular communication is the
use of the Glass Head.  This is basically a clear head held between / among
the communal participants in which a model is constructed for all to see.  So
rather than you having to see inside my head or me into yours, all we both
need to do is see inside a Glass Head, which was specifically designed to be
easily seen into.  Anyway, this is a more advanced form of conversational
guidance that we can talk about if you're interested.

Were these topics close to what you wanted, or were you asking about
something different?

} The reason I'm asking this, BTW, is that to my great amazement I'm finding
} that I sometimes have somewhat of a charisma. This is really wierd! In
} fact, some of the conversational techniques that I've acquired lead people
} to feel like I have somewhere to take the conversation, and to feel like
} it would be natural to give control of the conversation to me. Either
} that, or I just say lots of conversation-stoppers :-)

Heh, heh, heh.  Do you remember that picture you showed me of you leaning
against the wall?  That was a picture of a man with charisma.  ;-)

Seriously, when you like yourself, like the world, and are enthusiastic about
things, you naturally exude a magnetism.  When your skills are polished and
you excite people, you exude a type of charisma.  The two are a powerful
combination.

BTW, conversational guidance is quite different than control.  The best that
you can hope to achieve with control is exactly what you envisioned.  Whereas
guided conversations will frequently lead to revelation: the understanding of
a New Thing.  Thus, employing control techniques are inherently more limiting
than those of guidance.

As for people "ceding control" to you, this is probably a sign of trust that 
they have in you.  Normally people have on a small space that they will allow
an interaction to go.  The more people know you and enjoy themselves with
you, the larger the space, and hence the larger the trust.  This may be less
a control phenomenon that a trust one; they are willing to accompany you 
wherever you might go because they trust in you.  In any event, I do not
recommend trying to control your conversations, especially if you want to
grow other people's trust in you.