whenever i’m talking to someone and they tell me about something that happened to them i always tell them about something that happened to me that’s similar to what happened to them. i do it as kind of a “oh hey yeah this happened to me so i can relate to what you’re going through” but i’m always afraid it comes out as “oh yeah well this happened to me so clearly i have it tougher than you” or “i’m done talking about you let’s talk about me”
i swear i don’t mean it like that……..
I run into this a lot with my job – so instead of telling the whole story I say something like, “Oh my gosh, I had something REALLY similar happen. What did you do after that??” And I’ve found that works. Usually they explain and then ask, “So what happened to you?” And then you’re invited to share, and the formula for conversing continues on. 🙂
of all the tumblr posts i’ve read, this one is going to change my life the fastest lol.
Thanks to both the OP for posting a thing that so many of us do, and the responder who gave us a better way to do it. You’re doing the lord’s work, my friend!
Fun fact: there isn’t anything wrong with you if you do what OP is describing.
Deborah Tannen’s work focuses on different conversational styles — the sets of behavioral norms and expectations that we bring with us to conversations. In one of her earlier articles, she describes two conflicting conversational styles that exist in the US.
One, which she (perhaps inaccurately) dubs “New York Jewish conversational style,” is based on the principle of building camaraderie with one’s interlocutor. The other, which she doesn’t really name but which we could call “mainstream American conversational style,” is based on the principle of not imposing on one’s interlocutor.
Each conversational style has its own behavioral norms. Mainstream American conversational style involves things like asking your interlocutor questions about him/herself and waiting until your interlocutor is clearly finished speaking until you say something. These demonstrate a focus on one’s interlocutor and a clear resistance to imposing. NYJ conversational style involves things like conversational overlaps — speaking at the same time as one’s interlocutor — and “swapping stories.” These demonstrate a high level of engagement with one’s interlocutor. Conversationalists using the mainstream American style make space for each other; conversationalists using the New York Jewish style carve out their own space.
Each of these conversational styles works well when the two people conversing have the same style. Imagine two friends meeting for drinks after work:
“Oh, hello! How was your trip here?”
“Oh, it was awful. There was so much traffic on the turnpike.”
“I know. How was your trip?”
“Well, there was an accident on the bridge.”
“Oh no! Was there a big backup?”
“Yeah, pretty big.”
“Hey! Ugh, sorry I’m late, there was so much traffic on the turnpike—”
“Oh my god, I know, there was an accident on the bridge and the cars were backed up a MILE—”
“That is the worst, I remember one time I sat in traffic for an HOUR waiting to get through that toll, they really should—”
“Add more EZ-pass lanes, right?”
“Add more lanes, yeah, exactly.”
Both of these conversations worked: the participants feel that they’ve had their say and that they’ve been understood. They feel connected to their interlocutor.
But when people with conflicting conversational styles converse, that’s where things go wrong. Because we interpret other people’s contributions according to our own conversational style. So the person with mainstream American conversational style comes away thinking “Why did they keep interrupting me? Why didn’t they ask me any questions about me? Why were they so loud and emotional?” And the person with the New York Jewish conversational style comes away thinking “Why were they so disengaged? They didn’t seem involved in the conversation at all. They didn’t even offer any personal information.”
Rather, they would come away thinking that, except that we’re taught growing up that the first example conversation up there is what conversations should look like. So the person with the New York Jewish conversational style actually comes away from the conversation thinking “oh my god, what was I doing? I kept talking about myself. I think I kept interrupting them. I am so rude, god, I’m the worst.” When in fact: a) it’s about cultural difference, not individual moral qualities; and b) one conversational style isn’t inherently “better” than another.
Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t attempt to bridge the gap between conversational styles, as suggested above. But we should be aware that:
TL;DR: Cultural difference is often mistaken for individual moral failings.
This is actually one of the most interesting things I’ve ever read
New images!! Thanks to these ladies for asking me to shoot! Sandy Hook, NJ has become my go-to location for anything beach-related; it works so wonderfully. There will likely be more on my Flickr at a later date!
PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS YOU DONT REALIZE WHAT YOURE MISSING
when a song ascends through its meme status
this is now officially my funeral song
Jesus help me it’s beautiful what halp.
Zoe, drawn in PS.
One of my very favorite things besides ballet is Hamilton the Musical on Broadway (@hamiltonmusical). So I decided to combine both by doing Grand Allegro to “Dear Theodosia” from Hamilton. It’s an extra special video too because the song is about a father’s love for a child and my daddy is in the background of the video running my music. I am so thankful for my parents and everything they sacrifice to help me reach my dreams! #Hamilton #hamiltonmusical #HamiltonBway #RiseUp #TheRoomWhereItHappens #DearTheodosia @olivia_thedancer @jacquelineporterballet
This week was a revolutionary week in the sciences – not because we
discovered a new fundamental particle or had a new breakthrough in
quantum computing – but because some of the most prominent world leaders
announced an initiative which asserts that European scientific papers
should be made freely available to all by 2020.
This would legally only impact research supported by public and
public-private funds, which are a vast portion of the papers produced
annually; however, the goal is to make all science freely available.
Ultimately, the commitment rests on three main tenets: “Sharing knowledge freely”, “open access”, and “reusing research data”.
And it would totally transform the (long questioned) paid-for
subscription model that is used by many scientific journals. It would
also undermine the common practice of releasing reports under embargo (a
method that allows scientific journals to favour certain science
communicators and members of the media to the great detriment of others).
Ultimately, this decision comes as a result of a meeting by the Competitiveness Council, which
includes the ministers of Science, Innovation, Trade, and
Industry. European Union member states were in agreement regarding the
value of, and their commitment to, this new open access (OA) target.
If the 2020 target is met, it would mean that millions of people
(literally) would have free access to the knowledge and information
produced by experts in physics, astronomy, mathematics, engineering,
biology… it would make the sciences accessible to individuals in ways
that previous generations could only dream about.
European science chief Carlos Moedas calls it a “life-changing” move.
But as is true of all great revolutions, the goal will be difficult to achieve, and it will require much oversight and planning.
“The means are still somewhat vague but the determination to reach
the goal of having all scientific articles freely accessible by 2020 is
welcome,” notes Stevan Harnad of the University of Québec in Canada, who
is a longtime open access advocate.
Indeed, at the present time, the council has provided scarce
details related to how countries can expect to make the full transition
to open access and meet the deadline, which is less than four years
away. That’s not too surprising, as the announcement was only just made a
few days ago.
But given the current state of scientific literacy, and the sad state of science communication,
well, the sciences need all the help they can get. So this commitment
is almost unanimously welcomed by those working in STEM and associated
And indeed, it is a monumental task. Case in point, consider the
Netherlands. They are one of the most prominent advocates of open access
in Europe, and until very recently, their official target to reach full
open access for Dutch scientific papers was set at 2024.
As the League of European Research Universities (LERU) notes, this is “not an easy ambition”.
Ultimately, this announcement comes as part of a larger move to
provide open access to scientific knowledge. As was just intimated, the
Dutch government, which currently holds the rotating E.U. presidency, has long spoken out in favour for Europe-wide Open Science, as had Carlos Moedas, the European Commissioner for Research and Innovation.
And while it will not be an easy road, government officials assert that they are committed to the task.
“We probably don’t realise it yet, but what the Dutch presidency has achieved is just unique and huge,” Moedas said at a press conference. “The commission is totally committed to help move this forward.”
“The time for talking about Open Access is now past. With these
agreements, we are going to achieve it in practice,” the Dutch State
Secretary for Education, Culture, and Science, Sander Dekker, added in a statement.
To that end, while a spokesperson for the Competitiveness Council
admits the 2020 target “may not be an easy task”, all are quick to
stress the importance of the council’s new resolve. “This is not a law,
but it’s a political orientation for the 28 governments. The important
thing is that there is a consensus.”
So to continue with the metaphor, though all acknowledge that
there will be bumps and waylaid signs, all also agree that it is a road
This article was originally published by Futurism. Read the original article.