please excuse my pleonasm. someone informed me that you needed to pay now to use dictionary dot com. thank goodness they were wrong. dictionary dot com is still alive and well and most importantly, free. i had a ten minute conversation with some girls about the all encompassing good that is dictionary dot com. it was a fun conversation if only because it wasn't normal getting to know you fare.



i've found that the post conversation wrap up is generally more interesting than the actual conversation. like when you are trying to explain to somebody what you were talking to somebody else about, the recap often sounds more exciting than the conversation actually was. what did you talk about? "oh, we compared the similarities between chinese schools in houston versus those in san diego." or "we shifted from paramilitary tactics to gorillas in space, with a detour at 'the sociological effects of rum on reproduction' " but sometimes when you're actually engaged in the conversation it's just a jumble of who gets to say the next line first. rarely am i able to meet strangers or party acquaintances without having some sort of cue card in mind. i wonder if this makes me seem distracted. being a social talker is definitely a skill that can be turned on and off. or absent altogether. isn't it fun when you can see your social opponent struggling for something to say? or are both people so wrapped up in thinking about what to say that the conversation manages a sort of halting rhythm?



the worst is when you are stuck with somebody boring. i think people should come ready and prepared with a list to hand out about the most interesting aspects of their life/personality/thoughts. that way we can cut straight to the chase. we could meet and say "hi i'm jon, hi i'm bonnie," take a minute to look over our cheat sheets and then proceed to find things that are mutually interesting. "oh, you were once in north dakota? how grand, tell me all about it." and should you happen to be both mutually bored then you could just move on with a disappointed smile and a "oh look, the bathroom opened up." it's a good system.



sometimes when you meet people though, the conversation gains an instantaneous flow, where you don't have to worry about where the conversation is going. i find this happens most often when both people are slightly tipsy or if there is a third person around. this way two people can work in conjunction to play off each other to the amusment of the third person. it helps fill the dead space when you have three people. this positive lightbulb effect has been observed many times. however, as jon g notes, "i'd cringe whenever the point person left the table/area for a potty break and i'd be alone with the 'other' person. "what do i say? ahhhhh?" this point person thing has to be researched some more. nothing is worse than a genial conversation that suddenly collapses into dead air because the point person left. point people should not be allowed to leave the table, ever. hogtie those suckers down.



i think any work talk is inevitably boring. because much like a chess opening, it leads directly to a predictable set of outcomes and potential conflicts. push the e4 pawn and you are in an open position, push the d4 pawn and you are looking at a closed game. go with the "what do you do for work" question and you are screwed into talking about "what did you study, do you like it, what are your plans, do you like your job, is this what you originally saw yourself doing, blah blah blah." even interesting occupations are usually boring. the worst is when you have to feign unknowledge to be able to ask stuff like, "what does a mcdonald's fry cook do?" when clearly the mcdonald's fry cook cooks fries. and then you have to follow the first question with the incredulous, "wow! you get to make the fries? amazing! tell me all about it!" ignorance may be bliss but feigning ignorance is the pits.