outside References

Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers

Practical intelligence includes things like “knowing what to say to whom, knowing when to say it, and knowing how to say it for the maximum.” It is procedural: it is about knowing how to do something without necessarily knowing why you know it or being able to explain it. It’s practical in nature: that is, it’s not knowledge for its own sake. It’s knowledge that helps you read situations correctly and get what you want.

_______________________________________

Big Dan in “O’ Brother Where Art Thou?”

The one thing you don’t want… is air in the conversation.

Thank you, as well, for the conversational hiatus. I generally refrain from speech during gestation. There are those who attempt both at the same time… I find it coarse and vulgar.

the "article"

-- deadly distraction or useful utensil?

In the past I have been on both sides of this heated debate. Say you're in the dining hall, or the bar, or anyplace else where the focus is predominantly on the conversation. Then someone, seemingly out of complete boredom, whips out the newspaper or his laptop, or a porno magazine (in will's case) and starts to give most of their attention to that instead of the person or people they are talking to. A knee jerk reaction from the other conversationalists could be anywhere from confusion to anger, to physical violence, and all would seem justified; The listener thought them so boring as to tune them out in favor of an inanimate object. This is the kind of thing that conversation geometry preaches as a cardinal sin; something that disrupts the natural flow of a pure conversation between people, and it is the kind of touchy signal that can turn a casual friend into an acquainted, and an acquaintance into an enemy.

I would like to take this opportunity to make an argument in favor of the "article," or as I will from here on call it, the conversation stimulus package. First, it is important to consider the situation. If there is a conversation ephemeral enough that a mid-convo read-session is an option, it is probably not that important/meaningful of a discussion to begin with, and one that will surely not be remembered. In addition, if the person or people you are talking with are so easily bruised emotionally by you pulling out a periodical and reading it in front of them that they don't want to be friends with you anymore, then maybe you should get some friends who aren't huge pussies. And if someone is getting really annoyed by you reading, then their anger should not be directed at you as much as at themselves or the situation for providing such infertile soil for a good conversation to grow. Once the initial anger or annoyance is over, however, the real growth can begin. As always, the first step to solving something is admitting you have a problem to begin with., and your problem is lack of stimulating conversation.

This is how the conversation stimulus package can be a boon, not a boor, to any conversation: Substance. So many conversations with friends and others are limited by the asinine bullshit that is small talk.

"how are you?"

"good how about you?"

"good as well... how was your summer (Jared)"

"Good, how about your classes?"

"good, blah, blah, blah.."

Mindless and futile. The only thing that matches the boredom of such a conversation is it's futility in uncovering any useful or interesting information about the other person. Yeah they went to France for break and they saw the Eiffel tower, I want to know if they Eiffel towered any chicks while they were there, and that is not going to be uncovered in that boring "standard" conversation model.

The point of the stimulus is to shape the conversation and get behind the facade that we all put up because we assume (most of the time rightly) that no one cares what we are actually thinking about.

The key to properly applying the article is getting everyone engaged. If you are reading today's paper, ask them about what they feel about current events, and not just the normal dumbass questions, really get them engaged, share your thoughts, dig deeper than the cover story, present them with unexpected facts to get them to start thinking, maybe they have something interesting to say about that, if not, then move on until you find a topic everyone can resonate with. The same premise applies with whatever you're reading, from the wall street journal to juggs, from american science to a vagina care handout from the health center. Any article can be the catalyst of a hilarious and thought provoking conversation in the hands of a skilled reader.

So the next time you sit at a table and someone is reading a book or looking at a magazine, don't shy away from them and assume they want to be left alone. Engage them. Ask them "what are you reading?" See if you can start up a conversation. it might be more fun then you think, and hey, you never know, you just might learn something...

BERD

the Junda Ratio

If you’ve kept up with the exciting new developments in the field of conversation geometry as I have, you are surely salivating over the juicy thoughts of what is to come. However, another similarity we may have is the desire for a more unifying theory. Sure, we’ve presented plenty of ideas for you to mull over while you have much better things to be doing, but what happens when you encounter a conversation configuration that has not yet been catalogued by our visionary researchers. Well, what I present to you is a much anticipated theory that attempts to provide a more general look at the complex web of conversations we seem to ensnare ourselves in with uncanny regularity.

The Junda Ratio is quite simply put as the ratio of the perimeter of the conversation divided by the area enclosed by the conversation. Now, I know you are probably thinking, “how could a conversation possibly enclose an area?” The way I define area here is the area of the (quite possibly irregular and sometimes concave) polygon created by connecting each member of a conversation with a straight line. Then, obviously, the perimeter of this conversation is defined as the sum of the lengths of all of the aforementioned line segments.

The main principle behind this theory is that minimizing the perimeter to area ratio will ensure that, on the whole, members of a conversation are physically as close as possible to each other. It also ensures that there is a reasonably even distribution of people across the conversation. A brief look at the implications of this theory suggests that a circular table has the best conversation geometry of any configuration because it has the smallest possible Junda ratio. This seems to be in agreement with my common sense, boding well for the longevity of this theory.

MMJ

the Exclusion Phenomenon

-- A meta-analysis of the mono-axial seating arrangement

But before you turn your back on the analysis, ponder your previous Sunday evening conversation. Perhaps it was in a confessional with your local priest, in which case conversation geometry was at a premium, separated only by the ticket counter sliding window. On the other hand, perhaps you were all on one side of the table, engorged in the almighty football game on the screen above. And so I present you the curious case of the mono-axial seating arrangement exclusion policy.

At first glance, all may seem fine and dandy: all are enveloped deep into a conversation of their own, albeit not with their peers but rather with the likes of John Madden and Al Michaels. Because, my fellow conversation geometry enthusiasts, the single-sided setup is far from inclusive for everyone at the table, forcing individuals to speak haphazardly towards the sky hoping that words of their intentions rain down from the heavens onto the ears of others.

A similar scenario exists at the bar. In a similar scenario, conversationists are forced to limit their yam-flapping to right nut and left nut, or in the lucky opportunity of a rounded bar, those sitting kitty-korner. Irregardless, I present you all with a resounding alternative: turn that exclusion into an all-inclusive Sandals package in Cancun. Resist the temptation and opt instead to verbalize thoughts on the varicose veins on your grandmother’s legs and avoid that far-sided kit and kaboodle. Next time you’re at the bar, get up off your ass and mingle. With this in mind, together we can turn this phenomenon into extinction.

Ashley Miller

the Trump of Physicality

So you’re sitting at a larger table with more than 4 people and consequently, multiple conversations are going on at the same time. You happen to be fully involved with one, acting as one of the primary conversationalists. Then, from seemingly nowhere, a hand reaches out and gently touches your arm. Immediately your attention in the previous conversation diminishes and you shift to whatever prompted the contact. Even though your attention has been displaced you can still feign interest in the previous conversation until you find a suitable stopping place to talk to the other person. Either way, establishing physical contact with a person puts up a red flag and causes them to both wind up the conversation and focus their attention to you. There is no truly effective way to combat the touch. Once someone goes after you in this way, you are forced to retract from conversation, causing irreversible change in table dynamics. You could potentially completely ignore the touch but that depends on the importance of the toucher, conversation, and your overall physical animation. In most situations, conversation rarely trumps the touch. Consequently, physical contact is a great way to drastically and artificially change the situation. Kind of gay if you touch someone of the same sex? Possibly.

JMH

the Plane of Conversation

The other night over dinner, I discussed with some friends how a person’s height could ever become a hindrance to a conversation. My friends are tall fellows. One of them, at six foot, four inches, has me by ten inches.

I pointed out that, thinking about simple measurements, height should not severely impact a two-person conversation. Reach deeply in your brain and remember a high school chalkboard: “Pythagorean Theorem. a squared plus b squared equals c squared.” Now imagine a conversation between me, at five-six, and my friend, at six-four. We stand twenty-four inches apart. According to this theorem, our faces (along with the important conversational devices: eyes, ears, mouths) are twenty-six inches from each other. If we were of equal height, our faces would be twenty-four inches from each other. Thus, our height difference only removes our faces by two inches. Negligible.

So, in a one-on-one conversation, height should not matter. However, our dinner table agreed that larger conversational groups change the scenario. For instance, as a short person, I find it difficult to converse with people when I’m at a bar with a gang of big-and-talls, who raise the conversational plane and leave me chatting with their pectorals. Likewise, my altitudinous friends find it almost exposing to socialize in a room of shorter people, as the plane drops, leaving them alone in the stratosphere. Occasionally, one fellow commented, he has to lean over to hear what shorter people say.

Our discussion, however, seemed to be the counter-example to its own conclusion. Despite our height differences, it was going smoothly. The reason, I believe, is because we were all seated. Putting everyone in a chair brought the plane of conversation to a mutually-satisfying level. This plane was forgiving, too: tall people could lean forward a bit without looking awkward. I sat up straight.

Thus, height difference is a non-issue for a duo. For a group, it can be a nuisance, and, when it is, the group should sit down to even the plane of conversation.

REID HANSEN

the Sideways Turn

When you’re walking next to someone, either by yourselves or in a group, it is often difficult to judge the duration, frequency, and directness of looking at the other person. I find it easier to look in front of myself, either at the ground or in the distance, while still remaining engaged in conversation. Some people look at whom they are talking to a lot which forces the listener to reciprocate looks at least in some way. Is this direct stare necessary? As long as both are engaged in the conversation it seems that it is not. However, because some people do it you need to have some sort of counter. The half-turn is effective in this situation as it acknowledges the person you are talking to, shows outside observers that you are conversing, and does not create the awkward 90° full-head turn. The half-turn consists of maintaining the hips and legs in their original “normal-walking” trajectory but slightly turning the shoulders and head toward the person. Avoid the full turn. If you find this is not personal enough, tilt your head slightly to the side of the other person. This gives the illusion that you are trying to listen more intently to what the other has to say, which may or may not be true. Further application of the half-turn can be used during times of bar seating with multiple people. If you do not wish to fully eliminate someone’s potential for conversation, use the half-turn so as to better hear and show interest without full commitment.

JMH

Booth vs. Bar Seating

In a 1998 Seinfeld episode called “The Maid,” the comic quartet forgoes their usual booth seating at their favorite restaurant (a place anonymously titled Restaurant. Genius). The group sits at the bar, causing a disastrous conversation. Seinfeld has a habit of illustrating very funny but very realistic situations, and this scene inspired me to comment on the choice between booth and bar seating.

I’m tempted to say that booth seating is nearly always better than bar seating, on account of the obvious difference between the two. Bar seating forces lateral conversation, unless one person swivels in their barstool, potentially turning their back to someone else. Booth seating faces people towards each other. This “Facing Conversation” is superior because we have a natural tendency to talk to those facing us. Doubts? Try standing next to someone in front of a mirror. You will probably talk to their reflection, or, at least feel like talking to their reflection. This tendency demonstrates our predilection for facing forwards, as we will talk to someone’s mirror reflection rather than talk to them directly to achieve this forward direction.

So when is the bar appropriate? Yes, if you’d rather sip a beer than sit at a waited table, the bar is an excellent choice. But speaking about conversation geometry, it works when you wish to fragment the conversation within a group. For example, you’re on a double date. Do people do that nowadays? It sounds a little high school. Whatever the case, you’re on double date and you’re all acquainted. It’s a group of four but you really mean to converse in pairs. So, hit the bar. It will help isolate the conversations of each dating pair, while keeping the group together. The isolated conversations will be more intimate than the conversations at a booth because there’s no table separating you and your date, physically, and no overheard words intruding on your chat. And, now you can take advantage of the swiveling barstool. Turn towards your date and make it a ‘Facing Conversation.’

REID HANSEN

the Miller Postulate

It was at dinner the other night that my whole conception of geometric laws were turned upside down. As if thrown into a vacuum, traditional theory was put to the test: I was faced with a seemingly typical conversation geometric problem with a jawbreakingly revolutionary answer.

But first, it seems necessary to outline the scenario. For simplicity, we’ll assume a three-person long table. After stumbling to dinner late, I found said table occupied by three people. As was necessary, the trio was seated in your typical L-formation, leaving me with what many a practicing geometrist would consider an easy answer: finish the square ensuring effective conversation. But that is when I turned this two-dimensional world upside down.

Knowing full well that I would be accompanied by a friend, I (denoted Z below) opted to rewrite history and sit opposite the vacancy as shown below, in what I like to call the Tetris:

_ X X

=============

Z X _

Confronted with a troubling layout, my new dinner-mates politely inquired why I chose to defy the laws set forth governing the geometry of conversation. My reply was short and simple: We mustn’t limit ourselves to the present. The message I sent was simple and in doing so introduced a whole new dimension of the holy code of conduct.

Yes, what I suggest may at first appear controversial, but I must ensure you that my conjecture is strongly rooted in Einstein’s famous Theory of Relativity. For future reference, it shall be known as the Miller Postulate and proposes that greater dimensions of geometry take precedence over lower ones. In violating general law, I was able to take into account the fourth generation: time; upon finishing dessert, the original ménage-à-trois could very well have left, leaving only my accomplice and me. To save future effort in readjustment and/or the fabled awkward, I sat in the aforementioned Tetris formation. In doing so, I skipped the third and went straight to the fourth-dimension of conversation geometry and a breakthrough was had.

So to the readers of conversation geometry, I make one request: consider the Miller Postulate next time to take a seat. In doing so, the future will likely be a bright one.

Sincerely,

Ashley Miller