Prompt #158
Conversational dynamics
I read
’s fascinating essay “Good conversations have lots of doorknobs” and it really opened my eyes. The whole idea of “givers” and “takers” has absolutely changed my understanding of a conversation. Adam writes: “Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations; takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations.”
Givers feel like they have to be asked a question in order to share. Takers just share. Givers can find takers overwhelming. Takers can find givers boring. Takers and Givers are simply fundamentally different in the way they approach conversation and the way they think it should go! And, chances are, if you’re wondering why a conversation didn’t go the way you wanted it to—maybe it’s because you were interacting with the “opposite” conversational dynamic! Super interesting. Check out Adam’s wonderful article for more.
In general, I’ve always been curious about the flow of a relationship—the give and take, the way certain people stand in the center and others watch them, follow them. The way some people light up in certain groups and make themselves so small in others. The ways in which some people would genuinely prefer to be quiet and others cannot stand it. It’s fascinating! Take a look! Honestly, the way a conversation evolves is one of the most casual and normal and yet also enthralling things in our lives. It’s just so exciting. It’s so interesting to see how people morph when they can’t be who they are. It’s interesting to see how people defend themselves. It’s interesting to see how people attack others. It’s all so, so interesting.
So, here’s the question: Who are you in a conversation? In a group? One on One? A giver? A taker? What does the ideal conversation look like for you? A terrible conversation?
Tell me about it!
👏🏻👍