Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, smaller groups of less than 12 for me. If it's a new person I want to get to know better, then I prefer a 1 on 1 with them. I think a friend group of less than 5 would be ideal. I have a bit of social anxiety now after not having much of a social life for many years, so I didn't show up to an event when it later showed they were having 60+ people attending.
When I talk about being useful to a discussion, I mean that if I go to an event advertised as "We're going to be meeting to talk about Book X," I want to spend at least some part of my evening discussing that book in some capacity, not just listen to the loudest people in the group share their thoughts.
I do want to meet people at these things, which is why I'd prefer a less formal gathering where I can talk about books in general with whoever happens to be there.
.
My experience with those type of groups, and everyone's may be different is they fall into two general setups.
a. The first type is where the discussion is usually a lecture/presentation or perhaps series of short presentations by one to a handful of people followed by a moderated discussion between the presenters. The vast majority of attendees make up the "audience" and while they typically take questions from the "audience" the "audience" isn't really part of the discussion. These tend to work best when the presenters are very knowledgeable about a topic and the audience attends to hear what they have to say. A TED talk could be an example.
b. The other type of large "discussion" group tends to break up into smaller groups, either by design or just naturally, where most of the "discussion" is dominated by the loudest/most opinionated in the room, and often ends up having little to do with "Book X." I find this kind of group to be useless for me.
Like you, I have a hard time finding others who share my interests to discuss those topics. Smaller groups tend to work better at this since the very focus of the group tends to bring only those interested in the topic. But again, the downside can be dominated by the most opinionated/loudest to attend.
When I talk about being useful to a discussion, I mean that if I go to an event advertised as "We're going to be meeting to talk about Book X," I want to spend at least some part of my evening discussing that book in some capacity, not just listen to the loudest people in the group share their thoughts.
There is potential for a ‘loud person’ to be in the smaller group as much as there is in a larger one. In fact, it’s easier for the loudest folks to dominate the conversation relative to the former. In other words, you can’t control the scenario or make the people adapt to what you feel is a fair amount of time for you to speak (or agree with your opinion, for that matter) - no matter the size of the group. It’s not as if it’s a (classroom) debate, and each person is timed. :-)
My experience with those type of groups, and everyone's may be different is they fall into two general setups.
a. The first type is where the discussion is usually a lecture/presentation or perhaps series of short presentations by one to a handful of people followed by a moderated discussion between the presenters. The vast majority of attendees make up the "audience" and while they typically take questions from the "audience" the "audience" isn't really part of the discussion. These tend to work best when the presenters are very knowledgeable about a topic and the audience attends to hear what they have to say. A TED talk could be an example.
b. The other type of large "discussion" group tends to break up into smaller groups, either by design or just naturally, where most of the "discussion" is dominated by the loudest/most opinionated in the room, and often ends up having little to do with "Book X." I find this kind of group to be useless for me.
Like you, I have a hard time finding others who share my interests to discuss those topics. Smaller groups tend to work better at this since the very focus of the group tends to bring only those interested in the topic. But again, the downside can be dominated by the most opinionated/loudest to attend.
It is the job of a discussion group facilitator to make sure that everyone who wants to speak gets the chance, and the loudest and/or most verbose do not shut them out. I've recently had some here assume that because I write long posts, I must be one of those blabbermouths who doesn't let anyone else get a word in, but I really am not. I'm very interested in other people's perspectives, and especially like to tease the thoughts out of the relatively quiet ones. I'm that extrovert who goes and reaches out to introverts, so long as they appear comfortable with it. My methods of speaking and writing are not at all the same, though I'm interested in other perspectives here, too. Just because I write a lot doesn't mean I don't also read.
When I was facilitating groups at my old club, I used to carefully watch for signs that anyone was having a hard time cutting in, and I'd cut through anyone's attempts to dominate the conversation and make sure they had that space before they lost their thought. I'd also check in with anyone who was just sitting there not contributing and ask if they had anything they would like to share, though if they said they were just fine listening, I respect that too.
But I did note in the club's groups, that some facilitators and participants preferred a more structured discussion, with specific points to hit and an agenda to get through, staying very on topic etc...and some preferred to ramble.
It is the job of a discussion group facilitator to make sure that everyone who wants to speak gets the chance, and the loudest and/or most verbose do not shut them out.
Agreed, but that's not always how it works. Some people are just not comfortable with taking that much control of the situation.
My friend used to run a monthly discussion group. He has a very low tolerance level at times, and had no problem at all reining people in when things got off track. The woman who eventually took over that group would just let anybody talk for however long they wanted, relevant or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
I've recently had some here assume that because I write long posts, I must be one of those blabbermouths who doesn't let anyone else get a word in, but I really am not.
Same here. One of the reasons I'm on a bunch of online forums is because it's far easier for me to express myself that way. I am a lot more "talkative" online than I am in person. I even remember in the early days of email, I would mention to people who didn't know me personally that I was rather quiet, and they were often surprised.
Like everyone said, it depends. Smaller groups are nice, because you can interact with everyone, but large groups are more fun, and normally large groups break down into smaller groups anyway, so you have a choice who do you want to interact with. If it's only my closest friends, then I prefer a smaller intimate gathering. But some of my close friends have other friends which i find annoying and sont really like, and sometimes they want to bring them to events. In that case, prefer larger gatherings, cause if there are only 5-6 of us, I have to talk and spend time with them, and if there are 20 people, I can avoid them and talk to other people that I actually like
Location: When things get hot they expand. Im not fat. Im hot.
2,513 posts, read 6,323,996 times
Reputation: 5317
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenMM
I would consider any introvert group that is larger than one to be be an extrovert group :>}
JMO I think our level of introversion determines how many people we can comfortably interact with. I prefer one on one but I can do four comfortably. More than seven makes me twitchy.
In some ways I think I could be an anomaly. I am an extroverted introvert. One on one I could talk to the Pope. Heck, in High School and College I was on the debate team. Drop me in amongst a large group and I start getting flash backs of being excluded and bullied by the mean girls. I feel disoriented and tired and after a while I start getting surly.
Its a myth that all introverts are quiet and shy. Its not that we're quiet. Its just that extroverts won't let us get a word in edgewise.
I really only prefer hanging out with family. People other than family socially drain me. I talk in person with my social worker once a week so that helps me having conversations with someone other than family.
Oddly, I think larger groups are more introvert-friendly because the onus isn't on you to keep the conversation going or people entertained; you can fade into the background, but still be sociable.
But maybe just me!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
