Are you good at keeping up your end of a conversation, or not? How so? Are you talkative or quiet, generally? What kind of person do you prefer talking to, quiet or talkative?

-- ann monroe (monroe@chorus.net), February 18, 2000

Answers

I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation on a lot of things - mostly because I'm not interested. I can't do it. I don't even know why I would try to. I think in order to be a good conversationalist, you have to be first, understanding and receptive. If all you do is engage is lecturing, well, you're going to find your interlocutor as interested in you as most students are interested in organic chemistry (no offense to any doctors or biochem students or graduates). I always end up talking about literature, theater, film, writing, philosophy, and what not because I take intense, eternal devotion into them. but at the same time i always love getting to know someone from their persepective, which is always adding to the nuanced bits of information i've collected on the aforementioned aspects of life i adore. you have to seem to care, but more importantly, you have to care to listen.

-- Diego (drafael@hotmail.com), February 19, 2000.

Sometimes or with some people I just can't seem to express myself coherently. But other times or with other people it just flows out. With some people I can be very shy and quiet. Others have the impression that I'm totally extroverted.

-- Dean Cullen (deancullen1@msn.com), February 19, 2000.

To me, being a good conversationalist is a lot about awareness and the ability to be flexible and adaptable for effective communication: how well one can pull from a variety of styles and skills as needed. I tend to focus more on *communication* than on *conversation* though; I live for effective communication.

Conversation can be deep and meaningful but is not necessarily so by my definition. I see communication as the goal for me, in all directions: to get as close as possible to knowing what is inside the other persons and them to know or understand me. This is an impossible task but one in which we can get very close, especially through a process of asking, clarifying, restating, checking for understanding, and acknowledging when we do understand so the other person knows to move ahead.

So much of being a 'conversationalist' is, obviously, situational - how well the persons interact, each one's relative skills, but moreso where people are at that moment (energy, fatigue, security, emotions, ...) and each individual's ability to adapt in the moment to a communication style that works with the other person. Where one does not have knowledge or an immediate interest in the subject, a good conversationalist will still make the effort to be involved, to participate, and to show interest in the person if not in the subject. The ability (and willingness in a give situation) to ask open questions and probing questions helps a lot with keeping a converstion going. Then the person often gains information that may change his/her opinion about the topic and find what interests the other person in the subject.

A good conversationlist also makes an effort to encourage everyone there to contribute and be involved, rather than letting it lapse into a private discussion (even if that's what they might want, a conversationalist knows the time and place for that and stretches his or her comfort zone continually, regardless of personal opinions or likes/dislikes of some people present).

A whole other part of conversation is acknowledging and affirming the other person. This is very different from agreeing with them.

I do not see myself as a good conversationalist but as a good communicator, so my focus is different. I often am not able to interact or converse at parties where I do not know the people well or am not feeling an instant bond. I often do not initiate conversation or will sit back if I am not given an opportunity to participate as I do not want to push my way into a conversation.

A weakness of mine is that I find some people (not all) who fancy themselves as 'conversationalists' will focus on conversation and not communicate. That can appear shallow, disingenious and dishonest to *me* and when I get that feeling from someone, I'll tend to shut down on them or discount their input after getting that feeling and this can carry over to other later conversations. I do try not to be hasty or judge them or streotype them but I still will often shut down until I challenge myself again to make the effort with that particular person.

-- Annie C. Hawan (anechawan@excite.com), February 19, 2000.