Conversational Analysis
It recently occurred to me to examine a number of IM conversations I had with specific individuals in order to examine how those conversations reflected the nature of the relationships I had with the people in question. In the course of this, some really interesting patterns emerged.
For example, how frequently did one party versus another initiate of the conversation? How frequently did one party versus another terminate a conversation?
Similarly, after only a cursory look at my chat logs, it became really obvious that different individuals had different motivations and aims. Obviously most people use most of these at one time or another, but certain dominant trends were really easy to identify. Among these motivators:
In response to any particular statement or query, there were also a range of possible replies:
These patterns can differ depending on the pairings, and can also evolve over time and (obviously) circumstance. For example, at the beginning of a set of IM interactions, parties may take turns initiating conversation; at this early stage, if one party forgoes returning the favor of the initiation, than the interaction may fumble or simply die.
There is also a prioritization for initiation. If one is looking for debate versus empathy versus collaboration versus flirting, this will determine whom one chooses to initiate conversation with. Lacking the preferred individual, others may wind up being a substitute, though if it becomes obvious to that person that they are a substitute, this devaluation may also affect the nature of the overall affinity.
Similarly, one party may try to collaborate on the conversation (for example, by making a joke based on something the other party said) - at that point, the other party may collaborate further, perhaps extending or riding the joke farther, may react with agreement, or may attempt to steer the conversation elsewhere.
This points to yet another area where conversational interactions between parties can break down. If one party wishes to feel understood by the other party, but the other party shows no interest in questioning or otherwise pursuing interest in the party, than the first party may feel inadequately rewarded by the interaction and, conceivably, be disincentivized to initiate or continue further communication.
For example, how frequently did one party versus another initiate of the conversation? How frequently did one party versus another terminate a conversation?
Similarly, after only a cursory look at my chat logs, it became really obvious that different individuals had different motivations and aims. Obviously most people use most of these at one time or another, but certain dominant trends were really easy to identify. Among these motivators:
- To feel understood by the other party
- To evolve an idea originally expressed by the other party
- To acquire specific information
- To satisfy curiosity
- To persuade
- To create common history
In response to any particular statement or query, there were also a range of possible replies:
- Expressing empathy (mirroring)
- Collaboratively building on the conversation (adding/changing/evolving)
- Expressing agreement and interest in the other party continuing
- Asking a question/for clarification/for opinion
- Disagreeing/disputing/arguing
- Providing information
- Ignoring
These patterns can differ depending on the pairings, and can also evolve over time and (obviously) circumstance. For example, at the beginning of a set of IM interactions, parties may take turns initiating conversation; at this early stage, if one party forgoes returning the favor of the initiation, than the interaction may fumble or simply die.
There is also a prioritization for initiation. If one is looking for debate versus empathy versus collaboration versus flirting, this will determine whom one chooses to initiate conversation with. Lacking the preferred individual, others may wind up being a substitute, though if it becomes obvious to that person that they are a substitute, this devaluation may also affect the nature of the overall affinity.
Similarly, one party may try to collaborate on the conversation (for example, by making a joke based on something the other party said) - at that point, the other party may collaborate further, perhaps extending or riding the joke farther, may react with agreement, or may attempt to steer the conversation elsewhere.
This points to yet another area where conversational interactions between parties can break down. If one party wishes to feel understood by the other party, but the other party shows no interest in questioning or otherwise pursuing interest in the party, than the first party may feel inadequately rewarded by the interaction and, conceivably, be disincentivized to initiate or continue further communication.