I mean, this is also how talking in real life work. Chat is supposed to be the closest written replication of a verbal conversation. Rapid fire back and forth is how many discussions are supposed to happen.

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.

It's just a comment, not a 'tactic'.

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).

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.

It is highly debatable - that some people happen to think letting conversations die because they can't find when someone is trying to engage them is ... certainly a different way of interacting with the world than is normal

Could you elaborate on the distinction you’re making between genuine conversations and records of reaction?

Specifically, did you imply that tone and recognition of the other party are factors?

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

A phenomenon otherwise known as "conversation".

That's a great point. Generally my favorite part of the comments are all the little atomic nuggets of wisdom that folks post in one-off comments that are just tangentially related to the topic. To be honest I find most of the "conversation" threads to be tiresome as the typically just consist of 2 or 3 people talking past each other until the thread peters out.

Have you effectively communicated this to those you're conversing with? Why not? This is worth some thought.

Otherwise, I have noticed the same and agree with you. I recommend the book Crucial Conversations.

Modern conversation seems to be morphing into the art of using others' comments as triggers for one's own monologue. Instead of having the discipline of quieting ourselves in order to comprehend what others are saying, we isolate ourselves into narcissism by placing mirrors onto their heads.

An awareness of this trend may surprise you about how little we actually relate to each other. Rather, we use others to relate to ourselves.

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.

It’s interesting how it totally is an art, but is largely taught completely informally by peers and parents.

Yeah, that's how it strike me, too. I suppose it depends on the purpose of the conversation. If it's for enjoyment, constraining it to a single topic sounds awful. Most of the joy of good conversation is in how it rambles across topics according to the mood of the participants and serendipity.

But if it's a focus group of some sort, then limiting to a single topic is desirable.

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.

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.

Do they, though? Maybe I participate in conversations differently, but trying to unravel how A interpreted B's comment is not something I would do.