Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That’s usually how human conversations go. It’s not always efficient. You should try it sometime.


sort by: page size:

Does that really sound like a productive conversation?

This is normal for any conversation.

I guess that style appeals to some people, but I don’t think it’s conducive for good conversations. A better conversationalist knows how to pull out a thread and keep the conversation going without immediately jumping to an unrelated topic. A real-life conversation like this would be just as jarring.

> “… so you can tell them about the thing you really want to say without it seeming sudden or forced.”

Yes. And I find myself using this pattern when I want to talk (heck, I started the conversation, so I have something in my mind), but I’m not sure if it’s a convenient time.

If my asking “What’s up” unlocks a conversation, then maybe it’s not a good time to talk about what I was thinking.


I think human conversations at scale with strangers is inherently difficult to solve. We are prone to quick, context-life reactions.

Threading management only gets you so far…


Why is it weird to have conversations this way?

I would find it very odd to save a string of questions until the end.

It's much more fun to engage in the conversation actively.

I'm not saying control the conversation. Good conversationalists listen more than they speak.

But having fun in a conversation is engaging in it. Not replying paragraph after paragraph, in my opinion.


Couldn't the conversation simply be between two people?

Isn't that how conversations work though? At least, I know most of mine work that way. Oh, hey! That reminds me of something sort of related...

Sounds like a good idea, but i'm not sure how this relates to conversation.

Yes, wrong way to think about it. You want the conversation to immediately be about something you find interesting. You have to learn to use small talk to get to the big talk, otherwise you won't get to have those interesting conversations you want. There are no shortcuts there, following basic conversational norms are table stakes.

> because they often use huge databases of real human responses to construct their own

Honestly, this often seems to be the conversational gambit of human beings.

Coming up with genuinely interesting conversation seems to be a task that takes too much effort for most everyday interactions.

Whether it be standard small chat, quoting cultural media, or reciting social group in-jokes, much of human interaction seems to also take a "bags of tricks" approach.


I often have two threads of conversation going in a face-to-face exchange. It's not very confusing.

You believe that putting words in peoples' mouths is a good way to conduct a conversation?

And personally I’m fine with this workflow.

Having a conversation allows me to figure out what I’m trying to figure out.

Once I know that, I know what to look for.

To me, the value of the conversation isn’t its perfect accuracy, but the expressiveness and ease of veering in any direction that seems interesting at the moment. The efficiency gains when jumping around within a subject are incredible.


That's what regular human conversation is for.

I just can’t imagine doing this in a real conversation.

Totally disagree with that statement here on HN. The word “conversation” is doing a lot of work. Hehe

In face to face conversation with others, word choice is not critical because in conversation you can work out what someone means or intends over time. Written form is just not the same.


You're assuming they're trying to have a conversation...

I've fallen into that SOO many times. And it's a bit transactional to ask people to lower the intellect of the conversation to help you out for a portion of the time you talk together
next

Legal | privacy