I hate IM in some ways. It gives you more options to go talk to people, but you get to feel just as retarded for not being able to come up with a good way to start a conversation. On that note...
Really, it depends on the person and the conversation.
I can say, "Hey, you want to play a game of cards with me, right?" to almost anyone. AIM is also easy: I think of a question I want to ask, and I ask it, no preliminary greeting required. If the other person is as bored as I am, conversation will develop.
Random small talk - killing time with conversation, searching for shared topics with a near-stranger - that is much, much harder. Usually I prefer the silence.
see, the random small talk is where I'm hurting. I want to become better friends with some people, but can't come up with good ways to hang out with them or even say stuff to them. I guess "Hey, come over and play Super Bomberman" would work, if everyone didn't live so far away out here.
the "I think of a question and ask it" works when you have a question, but when you don't... bleh.
Well, yeah. I did mean people are too far even if they also live in King County in the state of Washington. But, if you ever want to drop in for Bomberman, feel free. :)
Personally and individually, though I should note that the closest I've been to a chatroom in the last N years is CS zephyr, which I rarely send to -- which just turns into more evidence, I'm afraid. To overelaborate, it depends on my mood. In particularly vivacious moods, I'm very forthright in barging about and interjecting my say into any conversation I can find or create, whether it be online or off -- though I tend to be in company in these moods. In less social times, I hold my peace until it's broken for me, or until I find the silence obvious and uncomfortable. To be honest, my online and offline characters have merged, or at least been incorporated as separate facets of my personality; I don't, in general, find my behaviour radically shifting over connection type, excepting perhaps that I can still type between breaths.
Oof, thats a tough one. I'm definitely better one on one or in small groups, but.. I checked three because occasionally live performances can be filled with stress, especially because you feel stupid not saying something. At least on IM you have the option to sit still. Starting a conversation when i actually have something to say is not so bad.
These responses are really interesting to me. Personally, I find it easiest to go talk to someone if there are lots of people around, since usually other conversations have been started that I can jump in on. Or, I can start a big conversation in a group, see who responds the most, and continue it with them.
But when it's just me and someone else, if I don't know them well, I sometimes have trouble coming up with what to say, to fill in the gaps. At least in a group, there are other people to pick up the slack.
Hmmm. Easiest by far is online, one on one. Online group is probably second, followed by a whole bunch of subdivisions of real-world interaction depending on how well I know the person or people in the group. There are several people who are one or two-topic friends--that it, whenever I talk to them, usually only one or two subjects will be discussed at any length. Of late, D&D has been the subject most often in this position. Sigh. I need to get out more.
It is partially, of course, a matter of distance. I seem to like more distance than is average. Online also has the benefit of being able to multitask while chatting, whereas reading the paper or something while talking to someone in person is just rude.
You didn't have an option for "In person, when you and the other person are both dead and are buried in the same row of the graveyard." Your poll was overly biased towards those people who are actually "living" or whatever they call it up there these days.
I'd definitely agree, actually: given the same people and other situational factors (which are, for me, more of a determiner here), IM sucks compared to talking to someone face to face -- but it's still a lot better than nothing.
It's mostly bad if you're trying to bring up something serious, but it's not too hard to model this:
Case 1: face-to-face. I mention something and the person knows that I can see that they heard it. They feel obligated by politeness to reply. If they're busy they'll at least say so, if only in an effort to get me to leave them alone since it's hard to ignore people actually talking when you're trying to work. If I say something stupid I at least get an immediate reaction, so there's something of a check against the conversation going to heck because we're not on the same page.
Case 2: IM. All I can prove is how long they've been idle (through the AIM idle stuff or, for zephyr, finger username@unix#.andrew). They could have their IM client buried under other things, or have clicked away the zephyrgram window, or just left, or otherwise not respond -- and the worst I can assume is that they're busy. They can pretty much just ignore anything I say if it's dumb -- which is useful if I'm trying to talk to someone who's really annoying because I can do it too. But the conversation can just go away without me seeing the person walk away, and I won't know what happened. That certainly affects the way to approach a conversation.
Case 3: e-mail. That's really hard - you've just put out a missive for someone to view and their reply is at their discretion. The actual difference between this and IM is that they will almost definitely see it -- but at some undefined time. This seems to break a lot of the expected mechanics of conversation and it's presumably why IM works better.
Case 4: at a party or gathering. Some of the reasoning behind the IM case applies here because there are too many stimuli to pay attention to, so there are lots of excuses. Being in another conversation here is sort of an excuse not to reply, as well as a way out of a conversation you find unpleasant.
I guess my point is that the factor of how people enter and exit a conversation has something of an effect on this, and it has this effect because a conversation, especially a personal one, is implicitly two-way -- a statement expects a response.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
option 5
no subject
I can say, "Hey, you want to play a game of cards with me, right?" to almost anyone. AIM is also easy: I think of a question I want to ask, and I ask it, no preliminary greeting required. If the other person is as bored as I am, conversation will develop.
Random small talk - killing time with conversation, searching for shared topics with a near-stranger - that is much, much harder. Usually I prefer the silence.
no subject
no subject
the "I think of a question and ask it" works when you have a question, but when you don't... bleh.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Of course, I'm probably better online than in person...hn.
no subject
no subject
I checked three because occasionally live performances can be filled with stress, especially because you feel stupid not saying something. At least on IM you have the option to sit still. Starting a conversation when i actually have something to say is not so bad.
no subject
But when it's just me and someone else, if I don't know them well, I sometimes have trouble coming up with what to say, to fill in the gaps. At least in a group, there are other people to pick up the slack.
no subject
Easiest by far is online, one on one. Online group is probably second, followed by a whole bunch of subdivisions of real-world interaction depending on how well I know the person or people in the group. There are several people who are one or two-topic friends--that it, whenever I talk to them, usually only one or two subjects will be discussed at any length. Of late, D&D has been the subject most often in this position. Sigh. I need to get out more.
It is partially, of course, a matter of distance. I seem to like more distance than is average. Online also has the benefit of being able to multitask while chatting, whereas reading the paper or something while talking to someone in person is just rude.
no subject
no subject
It's mostly bad if you're trying to bring up something serious, but it's not too hard to model this:
Case 1: face-to-face. I mention something and the person knows that I can see that they heard it. They feel obligated by politeness to reply. If they're busy they'll at least say so, if only in an effort to get me to leave them alone since it's hard to ignore people actually talking when you're trying to work. If I say something stupid I at least get an immediate reaction, so there's something of a check against the conversation going to heck because we're not on the same page.
Case 2: IM. All I can prove is how long they've been idle (through the AIM idle stuff or, for zephyr, finger username@unix#.andrew). They could have their IM client buried under other things, or have clicked away the zephyrgram window, or just left, or otherwise not respond -- and the worst I can assume is that they're busy. They can pretty much just ignore anything I say if it's dumb -- which is useful if I'm trying to talk to someone who's really annoying because I can do it too. But the conversation can just go away without me seeing the person walk away, and I won't know what happened. That certainly affects the way to approach a conversation.
Case 3: e-mail. That's really hard - you've just put out a missive for someone to view and their reply is at their discretion. The actual difference between this and IM is that they will almost definitely see it -- but at some undefined time. This seems to break a lot of the expected mechanics of conversation and it's presumably why IM works better.
Case 4: at a party or gathering. Some of the reasoning behind the IM case applies here because there are too many stimuli to pay attention to, so there are lots of excuses. Being in another conversation here is sort of an excuse not to reply, as well as a way out of a conversation you find unpleasant.
I guess my point is that the factor of how people enter and exit a conversation has something of an effect on this, and it has this effect because a conversation, especially a personal one, is implicitly two-way -- a statement expects a response.