Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

25 Dec 2006, 2:06 pm

I dont do small talk, and having thought about it, there are several types of speaking.

You've got small talk, which is a like a meandering river, leading nowhere in particular...

You've got One sided talk, as an aspie would do at times, ranting, or holding forth would be correct terms. Also, public speaking would fall under this.

Then you've got the other type.. it kind of blends into small talk, but its not. I dont know if its got a term, but it never seems to be named, and this is the type where two(or more) discuss something practical, or relevant to the existing conditions, or plan for some event, or things along that line.

I dont know what its called, but I decided to refer to it as 'focused talk'.

I find a lot of pervasive elements of daily life have no descriptive terms, and that bugs me!



Louise
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 377
Location: Suffolk

25 Dec 2006, 2:26 pm

It's just called 'discussion' or 'conversation', I think.



logitechdog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 973
Location: Uk - Thornaby

25 Dec 2006, 2:33 pm

That's why it's called small talk,, chitchat: light informal conversation for social occasions , meaningless empty chatter...

gossip = (a person given to gossiping and divulging personal information about others)...

Just to pass the time...

- Small talk -
- 1 sided conversation - ( Also could be called been self centred ) - as in not letting the other have a chance to speak...
- Discussion -



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

25 Dec 2006, 2:51 pm

But discussion is used to cover feedback conversation of all types. I attempt to explain to neurotypicals why I dont do small talk, and they exclaim that I do, and use focused discussion as examples. Most are unable to separate the two in their minds, with out a firm and concise term to differentiate.

Small talk is light conversation about the weather, gossip, feelings, et cetera, and is more about feeling out the other person and rating and ranking social levels.

On the other hand you have the sort of topics which would be discussed at a meeting; brainstorming, the offering of technical advice, anecdotes about previous events.. a good meeting steers away from small talk and stays focused on the topic at hand. I seek a positive terminology for this, rather than the negative (not small talk).

As autists, we need to learn to express ourselves and be concise and plain spoken if we wish to be understood.



logitechdog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 973
Location: Uk - Thornaby

25 Dec 2006, 3:07 pm

Yes but you can't have a focused conversation with 2 people in a discussion as they want 2 different out comes, you negotiate until you come up with a decision that you both agree on, unlike a meeting your all having the meeting on the product outcome you want...

/*
A process of talking about a topic in a group in a conversational way. Any contributions to the conversation are accepted from anyone involved in the discussion and ideas can emerge and evolve in ways which have not been predetermined by the teacher.
*/



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

25 Dec 2006, 7:07 pm

So what term would be sufficient to divide idle chatter from meaningful discourse?



logitechdog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 973
Location: Uk - Thornaby

25 Dec 2006, 8:16 pm

Structuring Meaningful Discourse

Structuring Meaningful Discourse

Here's an idea/area that more internet publishing sites should experiment with: meaningful questions.

Thus far, all of the 'interactive' features of publishing, such as ZDnet's talkback, and the NYTimes' Buzz are limited to general discussion forums, which are fine for getting a certain number of people to be eyeballs for ads. It can also be fun, but such forums are generally ineffective at generating any meaningful conclusions. Even when there are interesting conclusions, the signal to noise ratio is just too high.

Sites like Slashdot work within this 'everyone gets an equal voice' paradigm by adding moderation features, which works to a point.

Here's a slightly different model that could be effective: Make each article a dialogue, with the author at the center. How to do it: make a comment space at the end of each article, but instead of letting anyone throw out an argument, let people ask concisely stated questions which might render a meaningful response from the author.

Add some light moderation and a willingness to respond to the few best-rated questions, and you might just have a way to generate real discourse, and use the web to its potential.

/*
My answer is don't over think - let it slip - would you like it if someone pointed out everytime you where social wrong?
*/



chaotic_descent
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 35

27 Dec 2006, 2:28 pm

logitechdog wrote:
Structuring Meaningful Discourse

Here's an idea/area that more internet publishing sites should experiment with: meaningful questions.

Needs flow-charts! :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_chart
Imagine if debates were summarized in flow-charts.