I'm pretty sure in real life it happens that in a coming together somebody has a spark and tells a story in 5 minutes. This is in no way different.

This at start sounded like cheating for me, but thinking about it, developing these tactics to change the course of conversation seems like an important skill that all social people develop, especially with bigger groups of people in which the subset of topics that everyone understands and is more or less interested to is not very big.

Even if that is true, actual conversation is full of digressions, half-completed thoughts, repetition, incorrectly chosen words, etc. It's remarkable how incoherent a transcript of speech can look compared to how coherent it sounds listening to it (Donald Trump is a prime example of the phenomenon, as an untrained public speaker).

I like that, it's a really interesting way of phrasing it (and it eerily makes us sound a bit like the Borg).

Thinking about the words you use in daily conversation with diverse peers doesn't have to be "robotic". You're just being exposed to how other people in less privileged positions have to think and act, and that's uncomfortable.

>You can't create perfect rules for human conversation.

Is anyone here claiming that their goal is perfection?

>Everyone needs to build those interpersonal and conversational skills

And there's nothing wrong with receiving help and guidance while you're on that journey.

This is very true, but the outcome is usually negative and alienating to the subject of the discussion (me).

IMO, and I'm not a linguist, I've always felt we need to treat conversations as transactions, with each speaker acting as a party and continually updating some contract over time, with each speaker's goal to use conversational tactics i.e. clarification, questioning, answering a question, diverting the conversation, humor/jokes, lies, as a means to "guess" the contract the opposing parties are operating under, then using the best guess of the contract to later retrieve information relevant to the system when it has some confidence in the answers it can expect.

Something like an exceptionally complex game mixed with financial system theory, like I "bet" that you're going to keep talking about your cat, and maybe that bet is wrong, so I can ask a question, "What do you mean by wug?", but the act of asking that question will cost me some points, maybe you can think of it as though we're at a secret club and you use a phrase meant to represent a key and I'm supposed to respond with the proper answer. Even though I'm asking a question, I'm giving you information that you can use to update your best guess of the contract that allows you to assume I'm not part of the in-group of the club and I shouldn't be allowed in.

I've thought about a system designed like this for a bit but I suppose the biggest challenge has been how do you treat a conversation as a game considering neither party may "win" in any reasonable time frame. We could go years chatting and I could never fully predict what your answer might be because your usage of conversational tactics may be refined over years by speaking to multiple people of backgrounds similar to mine. So if I'm a cop, you might know not to admit to a crime when you figure out I'm a cop.

Right now, I don't think ML can do that, not because it's impossible but because I think conversations are as difficult as predicting the stock market. Fortunately it seems solvable, not everyone is expected to win every conversation in their lifetime

You're hanging out with the wrong people. Or something.

> when subject X comes up, Bob is going to deploy his well-worn chestnut that you've heard 147 times before,

You should stop hanging with Bob. There are other people out there who have real conversations about what's going on with them, their view of current events, their new ideas for what ought to be done, their new inspirations. . .

I think the more likely and plausible explanation for why some people sound more prepared when speaking is because... they simply are better at it. They've practiced thinking through things, and are adept at putting thought into words. They've developed the think-and-communicate muscle, through lots and lots of practice, and now they can use that muscle with greater effectiveness than your average bear.

That is perhaps an unusually... mechanical... way of conversing.

Human conversation can be a playful dance when contextual grey areas of shared and individual intent and information are explored. Most people do this implicitly, without need for explicit disclaimers — indeed, explicitness extinguishes much of the pleasure of the dance.

In other words, many people talk with others for the sheer pleasure of conversation, as opposed to a simple exchange of facts. This conversation-as-pleasure naturally leaks even into specific conversations that are indeed largely about the exchange of facts, because many people are accustomed to, familiar with, and enjoy the dance.

yeah, but you're supposed to then extrapolate on the other persons' pre-rehearsed response in order to escalate the conversation into something that flows without effort.

"What do you do for a living?"

"Mergers and Acquisitions."

"Oh. I have a friend that does nearly the same thing. They told me this anecdote, does that kind of thing ever happen to you?"

"Oh, as a matter of fact.."

Without small talk there is no sharing of useless trivia by which to use as a jumping off point into real conversation, unless there was some introduction or motivation behind the meeting, anyway.

Nope. Almost every time it's just a lack of drive to actually go and have that conversation. And almost every time, the conversation for a thing that's "complex" is short, there's no blockers, and the thing isn't actually that complex.

Personally, I'm interested in what makes a person push themselves. Normally, in conversations with strangers or even friends about eating at X restaurant - I'm bored. But every once in a while we'll have a fascinating discussion about something important to me. It's a lot easier to do this one on one - perhaps because it's easier to process one data stream. When I go to parties that evolve into people telling stories, I usually sit back and soak it all in. I usually get asked by someone if I am having a good time - and I truly am - but the person thinks because I am not actively participating that I am wishing to be somewhere else. Sure, I've had my share of aborted conversations that are uncomfortable. But this article makes me think that true people persons are truly interested in finding out who someone is - what they feel about things, what their life is like. By limiting my relevancy filter to stuff that is important to me - I am potentially funneling out a significant amount of people that I meet. Interesting article - it makes me wonder if there is a hack for consistently being able to engage people in real conversation.

Totally, that's been the best part of sharing it. I think conversation around "communication hygiene" is valuable for everyone.

> "When you are talking with people in a group, look around the circle and do the math. For instance, if there are three people, and you are talking more than 1/3 of the time, then you are a bore."

Being "a bore." Interesting choice of words, thank you for sharing!

This reminds me of a quote that I've always loved

> "I never learned anything while I was talking.” – Larry King

There are at least two ways to interpret this, and neither of them sound pleasant to me. I say this as someone who enjoys meeting and talking with new people, whether engaging in small talk or more deeper topics.

I’d kind of like to ask one of two things: a) what do you think about “small talk”? b) do you have some example in mind where someone recently interrupted your sentence you think is perfectly normal and informative? If you can write a quick script, using as many phrases as possible from the situation you remember, including the topic, I bet you could get a free, informative, constructive critique.

To counter with a more famous quote: "in vino veritas."

A conversation's quality is the product of each participant's contributions, so perhaps there are ways you can enliven or guide the conversation to improve the experience for everyone. (Chances are you aren't the only person secretly thinking it's dull.)

> there's nothing wrong with talking about good food you've had, some articles you've read, movies seen, etc. too. And to be funny and engaging while talking about it. It just feels like... after you're done talking about that, what then?

Next you can use those shared topics to move beyond the what to the why, from facts to opinions, and from those to deep truths about ourselves and our world.

  "Oh cool you liked Batman v Superman? I couldn't see past the explosions, what did you like about it that I must've missed?" 

  "Well the way the villain pitted the two heroes against each other reminded me of how when I was younger…"
  or
  "Well the scene where Superman gets nuked in orbit but then revives from the sun made me wonder about how radiation…"

In your long experience, how is this detrimental to good HN conversations?

I guess. When I was a youth you found authentic conversation by being in the world and meeting an authentic person and having a conversation. If we keep that definition constant then it's precisely as hard to find today as it has always been.