Balancing observing and participating in a conversation

Details that would have been lost in the blur of the experience, will stick in your mind and become mile markers.

We shouldn’t rely on luck. When we find ourselves in a budding conversation, we must be intentional with what we are trying to create. I’m not suggesting we bring a sledgehammer and concrete forms to every small conversation to change them into something enormous. Rather, we can work to subtly take things up a notch simply by changing our mindset. A found conversation can be elevated by adding just a bit of mental structure.

[James] Hillman had set aside parts of five days for taping. We met in a quiet flat and paused only for meals. Not only the machine but our conversation broke down again and again—our struggle was with the paradigm itself: the interview as a form, the question-answer interlocution as inappropriate for a psychology of soul, the notion of biography, and the interference of a lively imagination in a rational discussion.

~ Laura Pozzo (a pseudonym,) from Inter Views

I’ve often had the feeling, after a terrific conversation, that it was ephemeral. If we use the idea of an interview as a form—an idea brought to the front of our minds just before and occasionally during a conversation—we will end up interpreting the conversation differently. Details that would have been lost in the blur of the experience, will stick in your mind and become mile markers.

This changes the experience from that of sitting on a train and watching the world slide by, to an interactive walk where you periodically stop and survey your surrounding to make sure you still have your bearings. You don’t have to actually take notes or record your conversation. The simple act (simple in concept, difficult in execution) of shifting your perspective does the trick of integrating the new experience into the rest of your experiences.

Can you intentionally shift between the viewpoints of observer and participant?

ɕ