Cooperative conversational threading

In large formal groups: Robert's Rules of Order.

Large organizations, and organizations which have to remain unified despite bitter disagreements, developed social technologies such as RRoO. These typically feature meetings that have formal, pre-specified agendas plus a chairperson who is responsible for making sure each person has a chance to speak in an orderly fashion. Of course, RRoO are overkill for a small group with plenty of goodwill toward each other.

In small formal groups: Nonce agendas and rotating speakers

The best-organized small meetings I've ever attended were organized by the local anarchists. They were an independently-minded and fierce-willed bunch who did not much agree but who had common interests, which to my mind suggests that the method they used might be effectively adapted for use in LW meetups. They used the following method, sometimes with variations appropriate to the circumstances:

1. Before and after the formal part of the meeting is informal social time.
2. Call the meeting to order. Make any reminders the group needs and any explanatory announcements that newcomers would want to know, such as these rules.
3. Pass around a clipboard for people to write agenda items down. All that is needed are a few words identifying the topic. (People can add to the agenda later, too, if they think of something belatedly.)
4. Start with first agenda item. Discuss it (see below) until people are done with it. Then move on to the next agenda item. In discussing an agenda item, start with whoever added it to the agenda, and then proceed around the circle giving everyone a chance to talk.
5. Whoever's turn it is, they not only get to speak, but they are the temporary chairperson also. If it helps, they can have a "talking stick" or "hot potato" or some physical object reminding everyone that it's their turn. They can ask questions for others to answer without giving up the talking stick. If you want to interrupt the speaker, you can raise your hand and they can call on you without giving up the talking stick.
6. Any other necessary interruptions are handled by someone saying "point of order", briefly stating what they want, and the group votes on whether to do it.

In small informal groups: Natural leaders

Sometimes people have an aversion to groups that are structured in any manner they aren't already familiar and comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that. You can approximate the above structure by having the more vocal members facilitate the conversation:

• Within a conversation on a topic, deliberately ask people who aren't as talkative what they think about the topic.
• When the conversation winds down on a topic, deliberately ask someone what's on their mind. Be sure to let everyone have a chance.
• Tactfully interrupt people who are too fond of their own voices, and attempt to pass the speaker-role to someone else.

One technique we've used with moderate success is to pass a clipboard around. People can jot down notes, or conversational ideas that are tangentially related or unrelated. Sometimes that provides a convenient way for someone else to say "hey, what's this thing you wrote down about?".

It also could let you list your three things to talk about in a breadth-first manner rather than talking about each one sequentially.

It probably sounds like a better idea than it is in practice; the clipboard gets stuck when holders get distracted, or people still refrain from bringing things up, or whatever. But you might try it out anyway!

Robin Hanson's "EquaTalk" seems relevant: http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/equatalk.html

The more people there are the harder it seems to bring up something new because multiple people want to talk. If that happens often at your meetups it might be time to split the group into two.

If you do want to have discussion with 5 plus people you can have a moderator. Roberts rules of order would seem appropriate. LW people usually are good at following fixed rules.

In environment where there aren't fixed rules, I have found body language to be a tool to signal that I want to talk. I change my posture to be more upright and come forward. I raise my muscle tension. I take up a bit more space. I hold stronger eye contact with the speaker.

If I do this I often manage to look like I want to speak to other people. It's still requires other people to give you the word, but getting the skill of looking like you want to speak down helps you also outside of LW meetups where you can't trust that people know why you took the poker ship.

Sometimes there a situation where pauses between speakers are very short and I need 3 seconds to form a sentence and get speaking. In those situations making a gesture such as putting your hand on the table can signal to other people that you "take the floor" before you actually speak.

Conversation is an art. There were points in time where the upper class engaged in lots of it governed by elaborate rules of etiquette. And apparently there is a 'well-known' Cooperative Principle which states

"Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged." -- ''Grice, Paul (1975). "Logic and conversation". pp. 41–58.''

This could be used as a guide: For a pleasant conversation experience (OK, may not be everybodys goal) do not abruptly change topic but slowly steer toward your intended topic by using intermediate steps. This also reduces the Inferential Gap thus preparing the ground for your topic without needed to recourse to much once you start.

In LessWrong Sydney we are blessed with an unusually high number of natural leaders or people quite good at steering conversations. Its our luck, and we take advantage of it. (I am one of those people) (estimate 5-6 of our core are like this, usually at least 3 are at a meetup)

I stubbornly take out a notepad and pen, and persistently make notes on "current topic", a few words or so. in addition, if ever there is something I want to mention, I also write it down (often as I feel the conversation steering away without covering it), and people don't seem to mind coming back if the conversation does not naturally steer back over it. So far I have never not-managed to mention something and don't usually feel over-bearing in controlling the conversation (although I have my feelers out about doing so around LW)

I would like to emphasise as well that social control and awareness is a skill that can be learnt through some of each of books, online guides and in-person-practice.

The traditional way to announce a contribution is to raise your hand and wait until the current speaker or a moderator elects you. You may have heard of this method. Sarcasm aside this does work. Having a moderator (a role that may take turns) can also help to keep focus. Precodition on such a role being accepted. Also your hand is always available even if you do not have chips.

Tell culture? http://lesswrong.com/lw/jise/tell_culture/ potential solution,

To me it feels awkwardly autistic. I mean, I am probably autistic, I am just bloody ashamed of the possibility and like to pretend behave as if not, as I am not sure anyway. But if I could overcome that I could easily see myself telling people if I raise my left hand, please see it as a sign I would like to talk and get undivided attention in the next 10 mins and you are not obliged to comply, just know and recognize I would like to. Deny the request if you wish to, just be clear that it is a denial, and accept the chance that I am less likely to come to this meeting again if I get too many denials.

Just create a subreddit for the meet up. You can post/vote(up/down) comments/questions/topics before/during/after the meeting.

Of course it would work even better if people could "quarters up" their favorite posts. Why would it work better? Because it would allow participants to quantify their interest in the various comments/questions/topics. Plus, how cool would it be to get paid for being an excellent poster?