I have been introduced to two new terms that I like very much.
Conversation Initiators are people who feel comfortable in propelling conversations by asking questions and introducing new topics.
Conversation Reactors enjoy providing thoughtful replies to questions and extending existing topics.
An ideal situation occurs when an Initiator and Reactor are conversing while wandering around aimlessly. Amazing conversations abound when you have two Initiators on a driving trip together. However, if you have two Reactors together (especially on the phone), you run the risk of awkward silences unless the two people are close friends.
Interestingly, there is a continuum with Reactor at one end and Initiator on the other. If a Conversation Reactor (let’s call her Magnolia) finds herself with with Jacaranda, who is even more Reactor-like, then Magnolia may feel obligated to take on the Initiator’s role. As this does not come naturally to Magnolia, it may all become extremely stressful. How can you concentrate on meaningful conversation when you are scrambling to think of the next topic before this one dies its natural death?
If Magnolia is a sensitive soul, she will feel even more distressed because she feels that she is overwhelming Jacaranda with meaningless waffle. These feelings are not limited to Reactors. I would classify myself as a Conversation Initiator. I have often suffered anti-Joanness because I feel like I am imposing on more Reactory-type people (other bouts of anti-Joan are triggered by me being stupid).
I have been wondering whether or not Conversation Initiators also have Reactor skills of listening. The verdict is: not necessarily. Don’t we all know people who steamroll through conversations?
I think that most people have a natural tendency towards being Reactors or Initiators (and it varies with company). It is useful and desirable to have both skills and this is largely learned through experience. I hope I have achieved some balance between the two facets.
It would be interesting to find out:
- Are Initiators equally attracted to other Initiators and to Reactors?
- Can Reactors only attach themselves to Initiators?
- Is there an equal number of Initiators and Reactors in a population?
If the answer to these questions is ‘yes’, then it seems wasteful for couples to be made up of two Initiators. Perhaps they should break up for the good of society. 🙂
Hehe… where did you get these terms? You constantly amazed me with your interesting initiator topics and your witty reactor remarks/observations. So perhaps you might have already found a balance. Good on you!
I’m definitely a conversation initiator, for reason purely because I don’t find myself interesting enough, nor do I have enough knowledge and experience to share in a conversation. Unless the topic really interests me, I will usually be the listener in a group discussion and provides questions to keep the conversation going.
Posted by belle-t
All this talk of reactors makes me think of matter and anti-matter. I wonder… are there Reactors and anti-Reactors? Initiators and anti-tnitiators?
Maybe some Initiators go well together, but if you get the wrong types then you could be in for some explosive consequences!
Posted by Beldar
Joan. The comment of belle-t of being a ‘listener’ and yet an ‘initiator’ struck an odd note with me. My initial reaction was that the two were, if not quite contradictory, at least non-complementary, and should not go together. This, of course, means that the model is too limiting and needs revision.
Perhaps ‘listening’ ought to be a separate conversation characteristic:
Conversation-listeners: people who prefer to others to talk
Conversation-talkers: people who prefer to talk rather than listen
It’d be interesting to find out where on the graph (ala the political-compass-graph) everyone (including our favourite composers) is…
Posted by ftalk
Yeah I find myself in a strange place – I can initiate with ease and tend to do so at almost all social gatherings, but if possible, I prefer just to sit and react because its less work and it gives me a chance to relax and observe people 🙂 Odd mix. Also attracted to people who can initiate generally, as I am seeking to attain that relaxation that i so rarely find in conversation 🙂
2C
Posted by 2c
I realise after reading my last post that I should explain the proposed conversation-compass-graph: I envisage it as similar to the political compass graph, with conversation-initiation/reaction on the x-axis, and conversation-listening/talking on the y-axis.
2C, perhaps you have a previously unknown skill of dimension-hopping and are, thus, able to exist in two places on the conversation-compass-graph at the same time…
Posted by ftalk