What is your opinion as to conversational dynamics around the dinner table - or among small groups at a social gathering. Say you have 2 other couples over to your house. As a general matter, should there be one conversation that involves everyone, or are you fine with there being 2 or 3 separate conversations?
My wife and I were at such a gathering last night. At one point during dinner, the other 2 couples were engaged in 2 2-person conversations, making no effort to engage us. We often encounter such situations. Or a group is engaging in a conversation - maybe about someone’s travel or family. And without waiting to change the general conversation, 2 people will just start discussing something completely different. We find it uncomfortable - and even somewhat rude. Can be frustrating if I’m a part of the original conversation, and realize I’d RATHER be part of what the other folk are discussing.
Yeah, I’ll say it myself. I’m probably boring and annoying as fuck, causing folk to have their own conversations. :rolleyes: But even as a family of 6 growing up, or 5 with our kids, the general dynamic was to aspire to a single conversation that incorporated everyone present.
Probably more likely to break down if the group gets to 8 or more.
My impression is that our preference is in the minority. I guess I’m hoping for some gauge of exactly HOW MUCH in the minority…
Ideally, all present participating in the same conversation, but it’s not realistic to expect that the whole time from everyone. Some won’t hear or understand as well as others, there will be “inside” commentary, etc.
I prefer small, organically shifting conversations. But no one grouping should last that long, and everyone should pay attention and reach out/shift the conversation if anyone is accidently left out by the way the conversational groups broke out.
For example, let’s say we are with a couple and the wife is someone I used to work with. At some point, we’re going to want to update each other about our mutual acquaintances that our spouses don’t know or care about. So if they could spend the time talking about video games or something, that would give us time to catch up. If we can only talk about things that all four people are equally interested in, its going to really limit conversation. But the dynamic should always be evolving and it should rarely be 3 talking/one bored, and never for long.
What would not be cool would be for me and my husband to talk to each other the whole time. The point of being social is to talk to others.
I think an ideal would be a mix. Maybe skewed towards more conversations involving everyone, but with some sidebar conversations sprinkled in between.
I appreciate sidebars. Maybe everyone else is interested in talking about, say, 19th century warships, but the person I’m sitting across from and I don’t have anything to contribute to that topic. So we can wait out the warship conversation by talking about something else, and then we can jump back into the conversation when it has changed to something else.
I don’t go to many dinner parties, but on a somewhat regular basis I will find myself sharing a meal with coworkers. Frequently I find myself as the “odd person out” because I’ll be with a group of sportsfans and they’ll want to talk about the big game or I’ll be with a group of parents and they’ll want to talk about kids. I don’t mind being the listener in these conversations, but sometimes I want to be an active participant. Sidebar conversations give everyone a chance to talk about what they want to talk about. And they can also serve as incubators for the next “group” conversational topic so that it doesn’t stay flat-lined on 19th century warships.
Depends on numbers. Four of us total and I would say just one conversation. But if its like eight or more I can see multiple conversations going even on the same/related topic.
In my mind it is incredibly rude to engage in a 2-person involved conversation when there are 2 people sitting right there near you who aren’t engaged with anyone. At social gatherings, people should make an effort to include people and make them feel comfortable and welcome. The Host/hostess should especially try to prevent this.
Asides here and there are expected, certainly when there are larger groups, but in the OP’s case of what sounds like six people, three couples, it reflects badly on the hosts for allowing you to be outside of the dinner conversation for a prolonged time and not even notice.
In general, I think that six is about the biggest group around a dining table or other social setting that you can expect to largely remain as one conversational group – and that assumes you’re in a sufficiently quiet environment to allow everyone to hear each other.
Even then, if you have a subgroup within the six that has a particular interest, it’s not unlikely for them to wind up in their own conversation, unless they’re actively trying to be inclusive of everyone (and, honestly, not many people will even be aware that they’re effectively excluding people, IME).
Thanks for the responses. 6 is our preferred number for dinner parties/small gatherings. We generally feel it encourages good conversation, as there are enough different people to raise new topics and sustain ongoing conversation, but not too large to allow a single conversation.
And we very much appreciate “side conversations” among folk who share a specific interest not generally shared. But the kind of thing that bugs me is if - say - there is a conversation about one couple’s trip. And without waiting for that conversation to end, of for a break to change the subject, a couple starts talking about their kid’s wedding. Or anything else that might be expected to be of general interest. I find it frustrating if I realize I would RATHER be a part of the SECOND conversation. But when the trip conversation is over, the other folk will have already said what they want about their topic, and won’t want to repeat it.
I also agree with what Grumbacher says about politeness. It is frustrating when some people seem to go on and on - monopolizing the conversation over something not of general interest. But certain aspects of manners encourage one to politely participate in conversations even if they are not exactly what you would prefer to talk about at the moment - assuming you would expect/wish the same in return.
Final point. My wife especially, has a hard time listening to one thing if there is a certain type/level of background noise. Competing conversations can make her unable to attend to either.
With 6 people, there should be an effort to have one conversation and everyone should be able to participate. I can see momentary sidebars where two people might have a little discussion and then return to the main group.
When you are talking about couples, no couple should retreat into itself and have its own little conversation that they could have just had at home.
Whether it is outright rude is not so much the point as the fact that at such a gathering the whole point is for these people to interact.
Sounds like none of the couples have anything in common that ties them together, like a hobby or job. The dynamic you’re describing sounds like what happens when a group of people who don’t know each other very well decide they should socialize, without it really happening naturally.
Were spouses just talking to their own spouse? Or was their pairing off between couples?
The host should’ve been monitoring the room to make sure all guests seem engaged and happy. If all 3 couples seem satisfied with their individual conversations, then if I were host, I probably wouldn’t have interfered. But a good host should’ve noticed you and your wife looking around awkwardly and taken it as a sign to start a group conversation.
Barring action from the host, there’s nothing that says you couldn’t have also initiated a group conversation. Perhaps everyone was waiting for someone else to get that ball rolling. “Hey, has anyone seen any good movies lately? We keep coming across duds” might have sparked some interesting dialogue.
I am like this too. I used to have a boss who would sit next to me in business meetings/dinners and whisper questions and comments, and it was complete torture. I liked her but did my utmost to avoid sitting next to her.
I agree that it is preferable to have all at the table engaged in the same conversation, at least most of the time. I think the social savior faire to notice the ebbs and flows of conversation and weave people in who are not getting a share of airtime is a wonderful skill, I wish it was more highly valued than it seems to be.
It is definitely a dying art, along with the art of conversation in general.
The best gatherings are when you have an active host who can draw people in and make conversations between unrelated people pleasurable, gently pointing out things they may have in common, then allowing the guests to go from there. If not a dinner party, the host and/or hostess should work the room, reading the guests and introducing people who may not know each other and dropping conversation starters then moving on.
The worst get-togethers are the ones where the host(s) just throw a bunch of random people together then sit around on their ass in the kitchen talking to their closest friends, leaving everybody else on their own.
The latter seems to be what people now think is appropriate. If you are going to have a party, you have to accept that you have some responsibility in making sure everyone has a nice time.
In this most recent instance, husband A was speaking w/ wife B, and husband B with wife A.
Dinner table:
Wife A Wife B
Husband B Husband A
Husband C Wife C
Couple A were the hosts, we were couple C. I don’t know how it happened, but it was after we’d been at the table for over an hour, and the 2 A/B pairs started private conversations, making no effort to engage my wife and me - and probably oblivious to the rest of the table dynamics. I guess if EITHER of those couple had been trying to engage the entire table, it wouldn’t have been noticeable.
I am not generally in such situations where people are just thrown together. These 3 couples have known each other well for years, and have dinner at each others’ houses every 2-3 months. I cannot think of the last time I had to dinner/went to dinner where people were just thrown together without some shared interest/history.
As others have mentioned, with a group of 6-ish, it requires some cooperative effort to keep a group conversation going. There can be all manner of impediments - such as one person holding forth at length on a topic of little interest to others. In such situations, I think a respectful participant realizes that not every moment of every conversation is going to be about exactly what they want to speak about at the moment. It seems as tho some people have no qualms about just checking out of the general conversation, and starting a separate conversation with another person. Over time, we’ve noticed that some individuals have that tendency - which makes it difficult when they are a member of a naturally groups set of 3-4 couples.
No, I don’t impose/expect strict rules for social gatherings. If 2-3 people want to have a private conversation for part of the time, that’s fine. But what I’m talking about is folk whose conversational dynamic seems to be very at ease with just checking out of an ongoing conversation and starting a “competing” conversation. My strong preference would be that they wait for a break in the conversation, and then say something like, “Do you mind if I change the topic…”
So is the situation that there’s a group-level conversation with some side bar chatterers? Or is it that there is no group-level conversation; just multiple small-group conversations occurring simultaneously? Your more recent post sounds like the former is happening, but the OP seems closer to the latter.
With your recent post, I’m going to suggest a lot of this comes down to culture and expectations one is raised with. There is probably no right or wrong here, just different.
It would never occur to me to utter the words “Do you mind if I change the topic…” around people I consider friends. Strikes me as way too formal and serious if all we’re doing is gabbing while stuffing our faces. If such formality is the norm in your world but it’s not for your dinner guests, this could be why they’re not acting according to your expectations. People are just talking to each other and not feeling obligated to do it in an orderly fashion, because it works okay for them and they can’t imagine it not working for others.
If Couples 1 (you), 2, and 3 are having a conversation about Topic A and then Couple 2 has a spin off convo on Topic B, what is keeping you from continuing to talk to Couple 3 about Topic A? This is where I’m getting a little lost. If Couple 2 is sitting between you and Couple 3, then I could see how that could make things difficult; you’d have to talk across two others to really join in the discussion w/ Couple 3. But maybe Couple 2 is chatting it up because they’re oblivious that you’re trying to participate in the first conversation, and Couple 3 is not “reaching out” to you because they don’t know you’re interesting in the topic they initiated.
Anyway, maybe I’m just a loud-mouth McRude Ruderston, but if I really wanted to talk about Topic A, I’d probably wait for a lull in Couple 2’s chatter and then say something like “Going back to Topic A (vacation), we just came back from St. Thomas and what a blast we had. Blah blah blah. Have yall ever been there? How did that compare to other places?”
I think my main point here is that if you’re trying to enjoy yourself at these parties, you’re going to have to put in some work to shift the dynamic to how you want it. I don’t think you can count on the others to spontaneously change what they are doing because it’s what comes natural to them.