Mi'sen

Is this an underused conversation scaffolding? • group enjoyment -> discussion • Q/A, spreading knowledge & questions; from experts to novices, insider -> outsider, old -> young • signals the value of directing attention towards areas which might otherwise go ignoredhttps://twitter.com/misen__/status/1124587633278169088 …

Book groups might be an obvious example, but ‘physical’ clubs - eg: sports clubs - seem more successful for quality friend search/matching. Why? Implicit trait trust > explicit interest proximity?

Do you need a mutual attitude of openness to establish communication? I suspect yes, otherwise people are just talking to themselves in vague proximity to other insulated people.

how does one ascertain that one has successfully communicated with someone?

I’m not sure really, but mutual willingness to keep the game in play could be a reasonable proxy? I was going to say something about felt sense, but: confirmation bias. Also, my capacity to read ‘successful communication’ may be skewed in unknown ways due to non-verbal stuff.

Thats a really good question. Eg: I’ve had people who I thought I had good communication with but later discovered there was a lot of translation error & assumption vs people who I assumed I didn’t really ‘click’ with but we’re still talking and maintain interesting conversation

Related: are you familiar with the controversy RE Facilitated Communication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_communication …