The Art Of Conversation
What are the ingredients of a good conversation? Does it require a balance between conversational givers and takers or is it simply down to taking an interest in what your interlocutor is saying?
In this week’s podcast, we discuss conversations. We debate whether there is an optimal way to conduct a conversation and put forward a series of explanations based on our own idiosyncratic approaches. We discuss sideways conversations, the rationalist movement and share some of our most memorable conversations.
A few things we mentioned in this podcast:
- LessWrong: Conversations
- Good conversations have lots of doorknobs
- Do conversations end when people want them to?
- Michael Parkinson interviews Meg Ryan
For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com
Transcript
Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Peter Coghill, Chris Wragg and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights and this week we're discussing the art of conversation. Nick, I'm not sure if you're quite the right person to go to for this. What, famed raconteur Nick Hare? Right, yeah, exactly. I was thinking if it was the art of talking, I'd go straight to you. Well, let me give you an example of this then. Oh, please do. Okay, so the reason I thought of this, because I read an interesting article recently, which we will probably discuss, but it was really just saying that in conversations people are givers and takers often and things go wrong when you get a giver and a taker that actually a good conversation is a bit of both, right? So let me, but it reminded me of a man that I met in Louis Armstrong International Airport down in New Orleans there, who was a Mississippi bargeman. Cool. And before you think he was all grizzled and beardy and smoking a cigar, he wasn't, he was like a boring guy in a suit. And I was just, he was, he started a conversation, I think we were sitting around, I think we're in the bar and I asked him a lot of questions about, you know, what, how these barges worked and he showed me some pictures of his barges and, you know, there's a lot of barge chat. And then he went off to get his flight and Tom, my son, said, Dad, did he ask you anything about yourself? And I suddenly realised that he hadn't, didn't bother me. I was actually quite interested in the barge. To be fair, I think anyone would rather be asking questions of him than you in that instance. Maybe. No, he was a little bit, did get a bit barge heavy at the end. But the point is though, this article, so this article, the argument of it was that takers in conversations tend to think that they're a series of declarations of things you say. I say some things, you say some things. Whereas givers think that conversation is about invitations to expand on something. So givers tend to sort of offer opportunities to people. And he says that conversations go wrong.
Speaker B:That sounds the wrong way round.
Speaker A:Well, well, so, so take, givers give you opportunities, takers take the opportunity. So, so the, the point is that he says that if you, if you have a giver and a taker, then it's very one-sided and boring for potentially both or two takers. But what you can't have is one person who's always, who's asking questions. The other one who just thinks, oh, that's great. This person's really interested in me or why is this person badgering me? But the point is that, you know, if they're with another taker, that's fine because the taker will, will, will get on, will say something back. So that made a lot of sense to me. But more generally, actually conversation isn't necessarily that easy. Can we learn to get better at it? How do you do it well? When does it go wrong? And how do we avoid that? Why are even we, us lot talking about it? Yeah. Peter.
Speaker C:Yeah. So the article is a good read.
Speaker A:Sorry, Peter, I'm going to interrupt you there. Sorry. Just briefly, at the beginning of this, how good a conversationalist are you? You don't have to frame it in this, I think it's relevant, the give take thing, but how good a conversationalist do you think you are generally? Let's do it on a one to 10 scale. And, you know, 10, you're a great conversationalist. Interpret it as you, what that means is you want, one, you're awful. Peter.
Speaker C:Well, I'll sort of caveat it. It really depends, it depends a great deal on how cognitively tired I am. I noticed that my, I don't, I'm not a natural conversationalist. Wouldn't that be the same for everyone? Well, yeah, it is. But I, I, I've. If he's asleep, he's 10 out of 10. Some of the best conversations I've had with Peter is, yeah. Yeah, I've noticed I'm very sensitive to how tired I am. Conversation for me is often very effortful, especially if it's someone new. Yeah. And there's no sort of, a lot of the conversation is working out where your shared understanding is. Yeah. On topics and where you're doing small, I find small talk utterly exhausting. Yeah. So anywhere between eight, when I'm talking with someone like Nick. Yeah. We can have pretty fast paced, high powered conversations. Fast maybe, that's one. Yeah. But then if I just meet somebody on the street who has got a very different worldview to me and a very different level of understanding about things that I'm interested in. It's probably a two. Interesting. And I'm tired, you know, it's two.
Speaker B:I think we're already getting into something here. Chris? Well, I suppose there are two aspects for me. One is I don't naturally like conversation. Yeah, I don't naturally talk to people. A little less conversation, a little more action. Exactly. Well, yeah, perhaps. But when I do talk to people, it's, I try not to make it appear this way, but it's essentially transactional. So there has to be a function and a purpose to the conversation for me to want to engage in it and to be enthusiastic about it.
Speaker A:The conversation itself doesn't have a value in itself necessarily.
Speaker B:No, that's right. There's no intrinsic value to me in the art of conversation and discourse. There has to be something I want and essentially the person has it. That might be information, but it might be... Sex, no. Don't really know where to go with that. I was thinking of less... Base. Yeah, less base things. But yeah, so it might be, you know, I want a particular decision to happen and the conversation is effectively... It's a vehicle. ...about getting them as close to the decision I want as possible. So, yeah, but I'm not... Give yourself a number.
Speaker C:You're very good at faking it, I'd say.
Speaker A:Yeah, I'm... No, that's the conversation later when he's got what he wants.
Speaker C:Yeah, that's right. I'm going to say a five. Okay. Chris is our sort of resident psychopath. We deploy him tactfully, you know, strategically when we need to get stuff done.
Speaker A:We'll come to you in a second, Nick. Just me, I would say, I think I'm a... I just don't think I know, and you guys know, I'm a brilliant conversationalist. Straight out, I'll give myself a ten. Kind of your job, right? Yeah, there's no accident, that's why I do, because I can't bloody do anything else on this episode, on these shows that we do. No, I think perhaps more than you guys, maybe not with Nick, but I think I'm quite socially aware and socially sensitive. I don't mean as in, like, I, you know, recycle my clothes, you know, my... Your banter. Yeah, no, I definitely recycle that, yeah. But no, I think I'm sort of quite socially aware and socially sensitive. I feel quite uncomfortable quite easily socially, and therefore I think I'm quite good at trying to sort of gee things along, get things moving. I think I can be too much of a sort of a giver in conversation. My daughter tells me when I meet new people to stop interviewing them.
Speaker C:Yeah, I've noticed that. You do. Really? You're very, you're exactly the sort of people, sort of person you want to have at parties. Have a sprinkle of you around at parties, because you get the sort of conversation going. But yeah, you do, not that I want to critique you, but you do sort of switch into a kind of interviewing mode. Interesting. When you're, you know, when we're having a sort of heart to hearty kind of conversation, you go into interviewing mode. I do, interesting.
Speaker A:Which in itself could be off-putting and stop people from opening up. Anyway, well, we'll knock off half a point. 9.5. Nick? I think I'm in a very similar vein to you there, Fraser. You're really good at talking about how modest you are. Maybe slightly different methodologies conversationally, but I think I'm a real space filler. I can't stand silence. And so I guess for that reason, I've evolved a lot of sort of tactics to kind of get things going. And they're definitely, I'm definitely not a taker. So it'll be very much like, oh, you know, what have you been doing? And tell me more about this thing. And what do you think about this kind of thing? Which I think, well, I say this, I think a lot of people would be surprised and think that I talk about myself a lot, but I don't. I actually don't really talk about myself very much. We've not really done a study on that. But I do do a lot of talking. But I don't actually talk about myself very much. But the point is, I think it's fairly similar, fairly similar to you, I think. Yeah, I think you're about right. A thing that I feel like, you know, it usually falls to me, Zoom call or something. There's six people not saying anything. I feel the weight of responsibility on my shoulders to get things going. Yes. Interesting. We're not so different, you and I, one of the few things we have in common, I think. But yeah, I think we have a lot of things in common, as hateful as you might find it. So you give yourself an eight or a nine? No, I'd go eight, eight and a half. Yeah, yeah. And I think it was a good idea that we started off with that. I interrupt you, Peter, before I do. But I had a mate, a very good mate, you know, for many years. And actually, in the end, I gave up because he was definitely a taker. And I just got fed up, you know, just like, hey, I'm super interesting as well, which you guys know that. But and we're no longer friends. Yeah, it's true. I don't know. Peter, sorry.
Speaker C:Yeah, well, just a few things about that classification, that sort of binary classification. One, it's not people aren't one or the other, they're giving and taking a modes in the conversation. So everyone is both. People might have a preference, but it's a tendency to one or the other. But it's about the mode of the conversation, the mode that you're entering in that conversation with. And it's also worth pointing out that although the word taker seems to have negative connotations, it's not. It's not. Neither one is better or worse than the other. In many ways, givers are just as bad. They start interviewing you. Yeah, a better kind of class names for the kind of more neutral might be something like a questioner and a proclaimer or a state, you know, someone stating something. Answerer. Answerer. Yeah, maybe answerer. Reading the article, the way this classification scheme he's got, when you have two takers, that's the kind of conversation you have between people who are advanced in their field, who know a great, you have a great deal of shared understanding and a great deal of kind of personal trust. That's the mode of conversation where you are firing lots of ideas off of each other. So it's not just taking is not necessarily just taking airtime out of the conversation. Yeah, yeah. It's making statements that then the other person can then challenge or build on.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah. And he uses the term doorknob, which I don't particularly like, but he says it's an affordance. In other words, a thing that people leave in a conversation that enables other people to do. I think handling is better. Super crucial. So I think it better think of them as like handles, things that will help you, but you want lots of them around. And one thing I looked at, I was trying to remember what the terrible interview was. And it turns out it was Meg Ryan being interviewed by Parkey. And now a lot of people criticise Parkey. And actually. Really? In that context. Yeah, yeah. Really? I've seen that. And I think it actually does look very much like if you wanted a study of what does it look like when you've got a giver and a taker really not working out? Because he says things like he like his first question is, so you said acting doesn't come naturally to you. And she just says, I did. As though he's making a statement, as though he's saying something and she just responds by saying, oh, did I say that? Whereas what he's doing is inviting her to expand on that and to give us some thoughts. And that is broadly what happens throughout the interview. He says something which is clearly an invitation for her to expand on it. And she acts as though he's just made a statement. And she's like, OK, yeah, right. But he's and he's fulfilling his job, his duty. I mean, that's his job. He's an interviewer. I think that's right. I think I think a lot of the criticism comes from a feeling that it should look more like a conversation. But, of course, most of the time you don't notice what Parkey's doing because he's very good at getting people to talk about themselves.
Speaker C:My interpretation of that particular interview is that it seemed to me like they were both exhausted or something. Yeah, yeah. Neither of them kind of wanted to be there. They just both needed a couple of coffees and a lie down from it. Yeah, because, you know, both personalities are usually quite different.
Speaker A:I can't remember what we're meant to be talking about. I mean, I know it's the art of conversation, but how did we frame it? Well, we've seen we've rambled off into a different direction. We've done it, haven't we? That's sort of good. So I've no idea where we're going, what we want to ask and what we want to find out. But therefore, Chris, you're the perfect person.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, I was just I was just going to sort of say I think all of this boils down I mean, there's a third category of person which I don't think we've really touched on. I mean, we're assuming there's only two parties in a conversation. But I think there's also the sort of observer, you know, role within a conversation, which is passive, but still, you know, still part of of it, which is simply listening to all that's being said by other people that are talking and not necessarily interjecting.
Speaker A:So that being the case, and that that links in something that just occurred to me, which is you talking about when it was just, say, one on one, the idea for you of conversation is almost like an information exchange or something. What are you getting out of it? Yeah. And I said, well, hey, what about the conversation itself? Does that have value? And maybe that slightly lends itself to this when you said, what about if there's more people there? But, you know, what is conversation for, really, unless it is just that?
Speaker B:So I mean, and I sort of thought about this a little bit. And from my point of view, you know, there are there are the purpose of the conversation determines what how you should engage in that conversation, what you should be doing. And, you know, I was thinking about reasons for conversations, you know, one of which being to influence people. Right. So you want them to do a particular thing, in which case, you know, you might be more on broadcast. You might be trying to make your case right as a, you know, as an argument. But equally, you might seek to flatter them by, you know, drawing them into the conversation and praising them and allowing them if you happen to know they like to expound their pet theories, you know, to let them do that. But then, you know, there are there's also the idea of gaining information, you know, so you turn up to a conversation in order to find out what the latest news is, you know, or in days gone by, that would have been your source of information, right? Conversations at the at the local village. You might use it as a sounding board. So you might go into a conversation to sort of seek somebody's advice, which is related in a way. But you've got I've got an idea or I've got a dilemma. You know, what do you think I should do? I'm planning to do this. Does that sound right to you? You know, and you're actually specifically trying to seek advice on a particular thing. But then there's like there's people like I think you and Nick for whom it's a source of stimulus or entertainment or like people talk about company, right? Bonding, group bonding. Well, yeah, yeah, exactly. Another another act is to, yeah, to reinforce shared understanding and group bonding.
Speaker A:Not even that. It's literally doing something while you're hanging out, I think.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Like, yeah.
Speaker B:Whereas I find conversation as a so I mean, I've heard this phrase, I don't particularly like it, but sideways talking. Oh, I don't know what that means. So the idea is and and it actually strikes a kind of resonates with me is it's easier to talk to people meaningfully when you're not sat looking at them when you're doing something. So you're out walking and you're chatting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So and and that's that's absolutely true.
Speaker A:I don't know. I'm not a fan. I don't like the whole sort of come down and sit down beside you and we can have a little cozy chinwag. No, no, no, that's not the point. That's not what Chris is saying.
Speaker B:That's not sideways talking. So that's actually sitting next to someone and talking, but the idea that the conversation itself. So when people go, let's go to the pub, right? I think, no, let's not go to the pub. That sounds terrible because what you're actually doing is while you're drinking there, it's all about the conversation, right? And that's the focus. To me, conversation is not a thing you would ever voluntarily do. No, but I'm interested in conversation. It's just there has to be something going on. But you'd happily go and play football with a group of people, but you wouldn't sit in a pub and chat to them. No, exactly. Whereas I'm the opposite. But if you went for a walk with somebody, you're sort of walking, but the chat is incidental to the activity. And I think that for me is, but for some people, they just want the chat and they're happy with just the chat. And so that's another source of purpose.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think if you're entertained just by having conversations with people, like I suppose I am. And I think Fraser is. There doesn't need to be a reason to do it, you know? Yeah, you also have to be comfortable with it as well.
Speaker C:I have sort of entertained Fly Defensive before. If I ever went on holiday with Nick, it would be involving sitting in a pub, playing poker, face to face, drinking whiskey, just talking about stuff. Okay, sounds good. If I ever went on holiday with Chris, we'd go sailing, we'd be on a yacht and we wouldn't say anything for two weeks. Okay, and only one of you comes back. Well, no, we both come back. The other one looks suspiciously fatter than when they left. We'd have a great time, but we would only converse when it was necessary to do something. Could you pull that line in, please? In nautical slang. Yes, yeah.
Speaker A:Splice the main brace and stuff.
Speaker C:Hold on. Peter, hello. I've never thought about going on holiday with you.
Speaker A:You did plan a biking holiday, didn't you? Yeah, we did actually. We did actually, yeah. Because you didn't need to imagine it because it was going to happen and didn't happen. But I mean, actually, because I was useless.
Speaker C:Yeah, well, the fantasy I have about holidaying with Fraser is that we plan it and nothing ever happens.
Speaker A:We're supposed to go on holiday with each other, aren't we? We've got to plan to do this. Peter, all I can say is if we did go, we'd have an amazing time because I'm fantastic company.
Speaker C:Yeah, yeah. You'd be asking me all sorts of weird questions.
Speaker A:I would, I would, I would, I would. So I'll just throw in a bit of data because I think we have, we're talking about the two-way conversation, which I think has rules of its own. The chap who wrote the article, Adam Mastroianni, he has actually produced some studies. He's an academic. Where was this produced? Was it in General Press? It was on a Substack article. I don't know what Substack is. It's like a blogging thingy.
Speaker C:But it's in reference to a published paper.
Speaker A:Yeah, he's done studies into conversation.
Speaker C:But anyway, the interesting thing he points out that conversation is obviously hugely important to us as a species, but it is actually quite an understudied kind of area.
Speaker A:So he did a study where he listened to nearly a thousand, or he got people to have conversations, about a thousand conversations he studied and found out how accurately people estimated when their partner wanted the conversation to end. And, you know, people tend to do that with what they call closing rituals, which is saying, ah, so anyway. You know, that kind of thing. Apparently, people are really bad at it. So the average conversation lasted 14 minutes and the average participant wanted the conversation to be six minutes different in length. On average, longer. But actually, the spread was very even. So sort of, you know, for every person who wanted the conversation to end five minutes earlier, there was another one who wanted it to go on for longer. But people's estimates of when their partner wanted it to end are really way off as well. So basically, we're actually pretty bad on average at, you know, getting that bit of conversation right. I mean, as he said, there's not very much data about it. But anyway, I just thought I'd throw that in to give it a mention that there is some evidence that people are not, on average, very good at even knowing when to end a conversation.
Speaker C:And that definitely sort of chimes with personal experience and intuition. Because you know, you go, you meet somebody or you bump into somebody and you talk for 10 minutes and you're like, oh, I wish I could, we could keep talking, you know, you've got to get a bus or whatever. But then there's plenty of conversations where you think, I wish that bus would come. I wish, yeah, come on.
Speaker A:Where you accidentally fall into the road and break your leg to get away from them. Yeah, well, I think the, so what I wanted to do was raise the additional issues of multi-way conversations. Okay, because I've got my own personal. Definitely. Yep, definitely. Just a couple of things and I have to tread carefully. What we've not talked about here is some other things like cultural stuff, but also gender and things like that, because I think of myself quite chatty. But in the words of Mickey Flanagan, I think he says, I just don't have the conversational capacity that I can't supply the needs that my wife has for talking. And I feel like a bit like that sometimes. Really? Okay, yeah. I've said, well, it's the other way around with me and Roz. I'm the talker. Yeah, no, that sounds about right. But I think that's when people are comfortable, it's like, fine, once it's understood, it's if there's a failure of expectations, you know?
Speaker B:I think there's this sense of conversation that is about externalising your thoughts, right? And so I think, and this kind of links a little bit to personality, right? So, I mean, obviously, you've got the sort of introversion, extroversion, very well defined spectrum of, you know, facet of personality. And they have shown links to, you know, the extent to which people participate in conversations based on that. But essentially, I think for people who, like me, who find conversations difficult, there's this confusion about the need to externalise lots of things. So I've got, it's not like I sit here and there's a blank thing going on. It's like I'm filtering the bits that get exposed to the world, right? And there's all sorts of things going through my head. Some people, for whatever reason, and I don't, I haven't looked at data, whether it's gender or cultural based, although it's easy to imagine that there might be relationships, but I don't feel the need to externalise the things going on in my head. I just, I have the conversation. And that's good for everyone's sake. Yeah, yeah, probably.
Speaker A:They're best kept in a vault.
Speaker B:But most people, or a lot of people, say all the things going through their head all the time. And I find that, to me as an introvert, who, you know, what is introversion? It's about locking yourself away a little bit from stimulus or not wanting as much stimulus. It's like, please don't impose all of that on me, right?
Speaker A:Because I don't, I don't want that. I've got nothing, I'm not giving you back. Exactly. It's not fair.
Speaker C:I've got enough work doing filtering my own thoughts that I'm filtering yours. Yeah, right.
Speaker A:I definitely want to come onto your multi-way thing in a second, just before we do, because actually, Chris, and this ties into that one we did about, actually with exactly the same participants on humour once and what's funny and what's not. I think I can be quite tedious company a lot of the time, because I'm way too much like you said, which I just bang on and just say whatever sort of just popped out of my head. And who wants to know that? It's actually not that interesting. Whereas with yourself, and there's kind of an inflation around my, you know, what comes out of me, whereas with you, because you're more reticent, actually, you're one of the classic thing is, you know, they don't say much, but when they do, it's worth listening to. It's that kind of thing. And I think there's definitely an element that we talked about that with your humour as well.
Speaker B:But there's a bit about conversation where I think we all think conversation is the words that are happening. It's the vocalised sound. That's the conversation, right? But actually, I think there's another dimension to the conversation, which is what is somebody's appetite for receiving those words? You know, do they need to be words there at all? Or can it be companionable silence?
Speaker A:Just sit there in companionable silence. Yeah. Not for me. You go to another room, we're going down the path. Yeah, I couldn't cope with it. So, Nick, multi-way conversations, tell us. Yeah, well, it's just that I think they are a whole different ballgame. Peter, you tell us about multi-way conversations. So, and I think it has a lot of costs and benefits. Soon as you're in three, four, five, I don't think a multi-way conversation can really go that much bigger than that, to be honest. And there is that sort of instability. Well, then it becomes a sort of focus group or something, isn't it? Yeah, like a courtroom. Yeah, but there's this kind of unstable number of people, which is about six, where it wants to be two and one conversations at once. Yeah, I was going to say maximum I could probably handle would be five and feel comfortable in that. Yeah, exactly. So I think when you look at those kind of conversations, then it's much easier, actually, for all concerned in some ways, because, you know, the kind of introverts, they can sit back. The pressure is off. No one, almost always in a multi-way conversation, no one is actually the target of the conversation. Whereas if there's two of you, really, if you're asking a question, there's only one person who can answer that. Whereas multi-way, it's much more about throwing things out into the middle and for people to pick up. You need two people like that. You've got to have a couple of people. I have my personal bugbear, and I really hate this, is when we're in a multi-way conversation and the person next to me is like, oh, that's quite interesting what you were just saying there. And they're trying to pull me out of the conversation so they can have a chat with me. That drives me nuts. That's not how it works. And that would make me feel awkward. The other menace is the late contributor. For some reason, you get a lot in. It's what Peter does in our podcast. It is exactly like that, but it's related to that. It's to someone who says, oh, I was really interested in what you were just saying like three minutes ago. And you're like, no, the conversation's moved on. This is a group effort now. There's two of us. That's fine. But we're all rowing together in this ship of conversation. And you and now are trying to talk about something that happened back there. But yes, I think it's interesting. Interesting. Dynamic. Yeah, because I completely agree. But I was just imagining we're very much on the same page with that. I was imagining four or five people exactly like you and me. Dreadful. Wouldn't that be awful? Because you can have everyone say, hey, let's all have a conversation together right now. It just somehow wouldn't work. You kind of do need each plays their part somehow. We need Peter. We need Chris. We don't think we do. But we need Chris to sit in there. We need him sitting there silently. They're the conversational team players. Oh, my God. I don't know. Just the pressure's off a bit. No, I suppose I'm just all I'm saying is you get to slack off a bit if you're an introvert in a big group like that. But I suppose what I'm saying is your responsibility, the price you pay for slacking off is you do have to slightly sublimate the introversion sometimes and jump in because those conversations move a lot faster. You know, so you do have to jump in. Whereas introverts, one of the characteristics is that they will think and formulate their thoughts before speaking, whereas you or I will do the thinking on the fly. Absolutely. We'll kick off a sentence and we think, I can work out how this sentence is going to end before I get to the end. And so I think that's the flip side is, you know, the downside of being able to slack off in a multiway conversation is you've got to be faster. And or bring something else to the table. Like you're the one who's you just get invited because you're rich and buy all the beers or you're fantastically good looking.
Speaker B:Most of the time, they won't turn up to the conversation, though. They'll stay at home, do something more interesting.
Speaker A:We'll come round their house. That's fine.
Speaker C:That's fine. OK, what else, Peter? Although the article describes how the art of conversation is a fairly understudied area. There are there are lots of kind of niche areas of study, I'd say. And a place that Nick and I spend a lot of time in the rationalist movement. There's a lot. There's a lot of published work in in in grey literature, blogs and things about how the ways of classifying good and effective conversations between people with differing views, how to try to maximise your effectiveness in conversation, how to disagree with people effectively and constructively. And that sort of thing. Lots and lots of really interesting and well thought out taxonomies of how it's done badly or well or approaches and pitfalls and things. So it's not it's not completely unknown, but that's really aimed at a particular kind of conversation. That's like you have a established level of trust. You know, you want to have a conversation with somebody. You may have different views and it's how to approach that in an effective way that doesn't cause arguments.
Speaker A:Well, it's interesting because there is a very high prevalence of autism in the rationalist movement. If you're autistic, these kinds of things don't come naturally. Yeah, much harder to know. You don't naturally know how to how to interact with other people as easily. I don't need these guides. It makes sense that you would. But it makes sense that you would study it. You would study it and go, OK, well, actually, we need to we need to work out what the rules are here. When someone says that kind of thing. How do I know? Typical thing, you know, if you're autistic might be, well, how do I know when this person is making a joke and how do I know when they're actually being serious? You know, what kinds of cues can I look for? So it does make sense to me. That's the kind of area you would see people, you know, high IQ, sort of mildly autistic people would be really good at working out how to be good at conversation, I think.
Speaker C:And some of the some of them I've read are quite deep. They'll explore particular sort of rhetorical mechanisms and say how to do them constructively rather than poorly.
Speaker A:Anyway, ironically, just all these guys on conversation have just completely switched me off and made me bored. Well, well, I was going to say what we should do is now move on to tips. Really? Tips and tricks. OK, well, how can people get better at conversations? Peter, what is the conclusions from your study? This is which study? You're looking at the things that the rationalist people have. What are the what are the kind of... It's a bloody minefield.
Speaker C:It's easier just to stay quiet. Yeah, OK, that's it then. Yeah. OK, shut up. Do it all in text. Yeah.
Speaker A:Yeah. Do you want to be a good conversationalist?
Speaker C:Stop talking. Yeah, forward slash S for sarcasm. Forward slash R for rhetorical. You should say that. That's all you need.
Speaker A:But do you do you do use that in actual verbal converse? Do you say forward slash R at the end?
Speaker C:I should do sometimes because, yeah, people close to me are terrible at picking up when I'm speaking hyperbolically or making a joke. And I, yeah. Yeah, hilarious.
Speaker A:Brilliant. That was a joke just then though. Yeah, good. I think I need to do that as well. No, look, so look, I mean, tips and tricks. I don't know. I mean, I don't really want to go on to that. But if you want to. No, I mean, I don't know. I just thought it might be a good place to start wrapping up. Like, how do you how what things have you changed about the way you talk to people that really? Yeah, no, you know, you haven't. I've got it. Changed or improved or learned anything in the last 25 years? Yeah, no, I think the only thing actually is because it is my job is I think one of the reasons why I got in. One of the things I probably enjoy most about making films, but also even just photography, which you wouldn't necessarily associate with it, is the people side of it. And, you know, building that rapport, which if you're doing a portrait, let's say in photography is I personally I think is really important. And so therefore, so I think that's what that interest or proclivity took me there anyway. But maybe that's refined a bit. And I think I've got better and so I really enjoy is drawing people out of themselves. And how do you go about doing that? I think I'm quite good at that. Maybe I do that a little bit too much when I've just bumped into someone at a party I've never met before and I start interrogating them. Well, I mean, for example, you want to get someone talking. First of all, trust, basically, just that they trust that you're a nice person, that you're not out to do anything horrible to them. You're not trying to show them up or, you know, that you're genuinely interested in that person. Right. But also, actually, the second thing, the way to get someone talking is if I want to know, you know, yeah, if I want to get you talking, we've never met. And I just bump into you and we're sitting next to each other on the bus. And we start out with a small talk somehow. Where does it end? Yeah. But if I want to know more about you, I wouldn't say, so tell me about yourself. You know, what I would say is what's with the hair? Yeah. No, I would say, like, you've got mad hair or something like that or a classic one. I think you're a total dick. But you might, but you might start talking. That's the key. I definitely wouldn't. Well, I would find a way. I think you picked the wrong person to sit next to. I know, but look, I'm explaining this really badly, but a good way.
Speaker C:I might retort, what happened to your hair? Yeah. Something like that. So we would stop talking. Absolutely.
Speaker A:Now, here we go. This is like a buddy movie where you rubbed along badly at the beginning. Right. There you go. Oh, no, actually. Baldy in the fro. Yeah. No, but no, listen, actually, I'm explaining really bad. A good example of this is what's called what's in your bag exercise, which I did with documentary filmmaking school. You got to a stranger. You've got a camera and you go, excuse me, what's what's in your bag? Right. And although if you did that without the body of the deceased, sir, can you move on? Yeah. If you did that without a camera, you would get beaten up. Because you've got a camera, it gives you a license to do that. But suddenly and so they open up the bag and I've done this. It just works beautifully. People start bringing out stuff, items and, you know, and they'll start telling you about their life and their children and all sorts. And that's so. So that's my point is you go the indirect method and you cut to the chase with something, but not with what you think it is.
Speaker C:So any budding spooks or undercover police officers? Camera.
Speaker A:Carry a camera. All I was I mean, it's just that I was going to say, I think my conversation game, what made it get better was probably your point, but a bit more succinctly put, if you can imagine such a thing, which I used to think that being good at conversation was thinking of interesting things to say. And I think when I discovered it was actually more about being interested in the person you're talking to, be they ever so boring, it makes things much easier. Like you can you just don't the pressure's off. You're like, OK, that's interesting. So how did you do that? You know, why did you do that? That kind of thing. It just sort of, you know, yeah. Question, question, question. What is either the best conversation you've ever had or witnessed or the worst you've ever been in or witnessed? You could even be on TV. Is that any good or not? Or do we like that or not? Well, yeah, I know it's tricky.
Speaker B:Funnily enough, you don't really remember conversations like you don't. You don't go, oh, yes, I remember that. It's like that was a really good. Why is it?
Speaker C:I mean, I can I can remember at least a couple of dates, first dates that have been on. And I'm already getting these are going to be the bad ones, not the good ones, right? And yeah, bad ones. And just just like for whatever reason, the conversation never really kicked off. And, you know, it's because they didn't turn up. Well, they turn up and they're either, you know, they might be exhausted or they just take one look at you and go, yeah, no. But they're just they're just trying to, you know, be polite. You see it through for an hour or so. So, you know, but there's obviously just no interest there at all. And the conversation is just incredibly hard. Some of them wouldn't even fill in Peter's three page checklist.
Speaker A:I know.
Speaker C:Yeah, they wouldn't do the Myers-Briggs and that sort of thing, you know, basic level entry stuff. Yeah, that's sort of. But I can't think of any specific examples. But I think memory of that kind of thing going on. I think we're on fertile ground.
Speaker A:I think I defend this question. I'll go because Chris is going to have another bad one. So I'll give a good one. And actually, it's more of an encounter. I do like encounters. So I'm doing a project walking along the Lincolnshire coast at the moment, and it's a kind of a pilgrimage. I'm taking photographs. I'm not really sure what it's about, but I think it's about life and death and metaphysics and so on. And then this bloke just started talking to me and I said, well, who are you? And we found out he was a retired vicar who wasn't sure if he believed in God. So he's doing the same thing. But no, he was just out walking his dog. But then that was perfect. And I just felt, OK, well, this is brilliant. This was a gift, if you like. So I can think that was a really and we had a really good conversation. We went back to his house and had a chat, you know, a cup of tea. Nick? Well, I think I can define the ideal conversation, I think, because things like it have happened. But it's that thing of it's when you meet a stranger where you've got exactly the right level of give and take. And, you know, you discover that you're interested in the same things, but they know about different things to you and you kind of chipping in together. And, you know, the hours go by and you get the whiskey out, you know, and it's three in the morning, which, you know, it's happened a few times. Often when you're on holiday or you're ready, you're feeling kind of, yeah, maybe and you're feeling kind of, you know, you're feeling more open to things to go back to Peter's point about your state of mind, you know, having a big difference. But yeah, I think that that's sort of the ideal. It's conversations with strangers on trains. You know, I've had several, you know, where you've been on a long train journey or a coach journey even, and the person that you're next to, you know, happens to be, you've got a really good time and then you maybe never see them again. Absolutely ideal. You don't have to have a friendship. You just have a really good conversation and call it a day. And that makes you all feel nice and warm and fuzzy. Talking of warm and fuzzy, Chris?
Speaker B:Yeah, well, I think for me, if it is a bad conversation, then I've no qualms about ending it there and there. That means he's not getting what he wants. Yeah, exactly. Or if I don't, you know, like if you get the knock at the door and it's, you know, religious sect A or, you know, salesperson B, I've no qualms about shutting the door in their face. And a lot of people are happy to. I would never do that. Would you not? No. Okay.
Speaker A:No.
Speaker B:But I also have the equivalent of shutting the door in people's face when they're not at my door, you know, of like, you know, chuggers or people I don't know talking to me on public transport. Oh God, it's the worst. Yeah, right. So I have that sort of mechanism. I'll just end the conversation like that. Yeah, it's like you really don't want to see this bag. But in terms of good conversations, I had one of the best conversations I can remember actually yesterday, only yesterday. Okay. I won't go into the details of it, but essentially it was talking to somebody. Who you already knew? No, no. Okay, it's a stranger. First time I'd spoken to them. It was a work call and it related to sort of the future strategy of our business, right? Sounds really boring, but they knew loads of things that were helpful. Okay, you're getting lots of information. They told those things to me. This isn't a conversation, but anyway, go on. 45 minutes. Yeah, but I told them about our business. I told them about our business. They told me loads of things that were useful to my business. And honestly, it was really exciting.
Speaker C:Yeah, Chris doesn't want conversations. He wants a library of information. Yeah. Just download it.
Speaker B:But did you feel emotionally satisfied? Very emotionally satisfied. Okay. Yeah, because I'd got what I wanted from the conversation.
Speaker C:So, yeah. Actually, I had a good conversation yesterday also with a...
Speaker A:Oh, you were on the same...
Speaker C:No, different conversation.
Speaker A:You were having a call with Chris, that's what it was, so yeah.
Speaker C:I just talked and talked and talked and Chris kept nodding his head. No, I was talking with someone we're going to be working with on a project. And it's sort of me giving a quick introduction to what the project is. And because I know this guy quite well, and I know he's very good at his job and very technical. I knew I could pitch it at a very high level. And he was asking the right kind of questions, making that kind of noise that I knew he was getting it. To me, that felt like a highly effective conversation. Because had I explained the same thing to Fraser, for example, I'd have to start base principles and it would take... What's tomato? I would say, what does base principles mean? That's what I have. Yeah, yeah. So, it would be... But then it just felt very efficient and very kind of productive because we covered a lot of things in a very short period of time.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think we should stop talking. Yeah, because what you two are into in conversations is definitely not what me and Nick are into. Yeah.
Speaker C:On that bombshell. I think you guys should stop talking. Me and Chris will keep talking, but we just don't say anything. We just sit quietly in each other's company. Yeah, monologue, not dialogue.
Speaker A:Just staring at each other. Yeah. All right. Let's stop there. Thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Nick Hare, Peter Coghill, and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. Until next time. Goodbye.
