The giver and the taker.
Yeah we’ve all heard the two together before, but the new proposal I’ve got is that in a conversation you can be both.
A conversation is a natural give and take. But a conversation may last more than one instance – it may actually be more than multiple instances. I have “conversations” that have lasted for a number of years – continued whenever the person and I were together again.
Over the ebb and flow of that conversation each of us has taken the giver role (listening) and the taker role (talking) a number of times.
What I am proposing is that in the natural sense of a conversation the pattern is comprised of both the positive and negative behavior. There are a number of anti-patterns in communication that would align with the pattern of converse.
The concept is that in any “conversational pattern” there are natural ebbs and flows that would result in the appears of a pattern/anti-pattern that in fact is probably simply the pattern.
- An insecure person would always be a taker.
- An over confident person would always be a taker.
- A person who is empathetic to others may be a giver always.
The beauty of the overall pattern is that we adjust to what has to happen if the conversation has value.
Now if you want to argue chatter, that is a different story.
.Doc
