|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When Someone Talks Too Much
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I'm hoping to keep this general enough to be useful to many, while being specific enough to be useful to me.
I'm about to try a new discussion-oriented small group study with my church, and I have someone who tends to talk quite a bit. I love that she's willing to participate! But often the others aren't able to take part because this one person carries the whole conversation.
In general, how do I politely yet firmly stop people from accidentally or purposefully excluding others from the conversation?
In particular, if someone is telling a long story and it has obviously stopped relating to the point at hand, how do I get him/her to wrap it up and make a point?
Have you ever recognized yourself perhaps talking a bit much in a group study? What did the leader do to help the others share as well?
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Hi there, I'm just going to transfer you to All Saints now, as this looks more like an advice/support thread. Hold tight and don't say anything until you get there ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Cheers
Ariel
Heaven Host
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Hi,
As part of my work, I often have to facilitate small group discussion -- among my staff, or among teams working with one of my clients.
When someone is always first to offer comments or questions to Every Single Topic introduced, a leader can say, in a gentle and polite way, "Let's give someone else a chance to be first, Gladys (or whatever the Talker's name is).
Also, it's perfectly reasonable to set ground rules at the beginning, which should include, "Be conscious of how much you contribute, and help others who contribute little to contribute more."
There's also the old standby of actually calling on quiet members, or asking the Talkative to do this prompting by taking them aside ahead of time, e.g., "I wonder if you could help encourage Harold to contribute more by asking him for his opinions."
As a last resort, there's always the Talking Stick, though in my experience this isn't terribly effective.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Talking too much is often a working memory problem. They have to say it there and then, or they'll forget it!
With kids I give them a small whiteboard to write their questions/ideas so that the others get a chance.
Can't see that working with adult's 'tho ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Maybe some kind of 'talking stick' arrangement would help?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Better that a talking stick, find someone who wants to join who would really benefit from a loop system. Then you have an instant talking stick with it all be about including someone (only one person can use the microphone at once). It really does work what is more people are aware of hogging the speakers position and feel self conscious using the microphone so tend to be shorter.
Tried twice both had interesting effects. The first it stopped people shouting across each other. In the second actually discussion took on a totally different flavour; in that someone would speak, and it might well be followed with 5-10 minutes of silence and then someone else would. I just googled to see if I could find someone else's account of the second but it has gone from the internet.
Jengie
[ 23. December 2013, 15:49: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
I have used the talking stick idea with great results when setting up a small group where I knew that two of the participants were going to easily dominate the conversation. We used a bowl and a small egg timer. Worked wonders.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
A trick I was taught - you need to be a little bit assertive and willing to cut the person off once they get to what looks like an obvious stop. "Thanks, Betty, that was a really great contribution."
Then before they can get going again, you directly address another member of the group *by name*. "Wilma, what do you think about this question?"
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
I have used the talking stick idea with great results when setting up a small group where I knew that two of the participants were going to easily dominate the conversation. We used a bowl and a small egg timer. Worked wonders.
And I hate the talking stick and egg timer concepts. Stifles conversation and makes one feel as if still a small child.
Not everyone has the same units of contribution for every topic. And an idea oft needs some space to grow, most especially for the more hesitant contributors.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Not a discussion group, but I'm on a Board of a non-profit with one member who is incapable of keeping her mouth shut. (Why don't they make remote controls with "mute" buttons that work on people?) She interrupts other people, often finishing their sentences for them (wrongly). When she interrupts me I usually stop what I'm saying, look at her, and ask her if she's finished so that I can go on. Unfortunately, she does this to everyone (and they're mostly more polite than I am!). The Chairman of the Board is a long-time friend of hers, so he's not going to interfere. I leave every meeting with a headache. Worst of all, so little gets accomplished because of her constant talking.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
One thing I have found very effective is to have a format where initially everyone says something in turn, but their thoughts, not commenting on previous contributions. No interruptions allowed. Even the most prolific talkers oddly don't go on for very long, although sometimes it feels interminable. Then once everyone has had a chance (not compulsory, they can 'pass') it can be thrown open.
It is less likely to just become a conversation between one individual and the rest then.
Another very helpful rule is 'no cross talk'
"Cross Talk is conversation between individuals during sharing or speaking time. This includes: Offering advice, directly speaking to an individual member instead of the group, or questioning or interrupting whoever is speaking.
Referring to someone’s share if you are moved by it or if it reminds you of your own experience is not cross talk. Nor is sharing your own experience in response to a share."
As the group is just starting it is a good opportunity to set up some ground rules in advance and ask the group if they think these would be helpful guidelines.
If it is the length of her contributions rather than the frequency which is the problem then maybe have a time limit on contributions.
Another thing that might be helpful is to have a review of the group after about six weeks asking people to offer suggestions for improvement etc. Flag this up at the beginning so people expect it.
Personally I always feel very safe if there is a clear structure to these groups. Then everyone knows where they stand. Far from inhibiting discussion it actually facilitates it.
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
What is a Talking Stick? All the sticks I've ever picked up don't talk. Is that a bit like the Velveteen Rabbit?
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
The Talking Stick concept is, I think, originally an idea from early Greek Democracy where only the person holding the stick can talk so people have to metaphorically queue up. It works sometimes but can, as warned, infanticise people. It depends on the group.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
As I tell my social skills groups (I do primary school special education, specifically targeting kids with social/pragmatic disorders)...the talking stick does NOT talk, but when you're holding the talking stick, it's your turn to talk, and when you're not holding the talking stick, it's your turn to listen.
Groups I've been part of that addressed this stuff as adults always put "step up/step back" as one of their norms--that if you're a person who tends not to speak, you challenge yourself to contribute, and if you're a person who tends to take a larger portion of the verbal space, you be mindful of this and adjust accordingly.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
You could ask your talkative person if they could take notes so that people who can't attend can keep up ~ difficult to take moves and dominate conversations.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
All of this is good advice. I think finding the assertiveness to break in and say "Thanks, A, that's a good story. B, what do you think?" will be key.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
If the courtesies to listen while others are speaking, to try to put your point succinctly and not to 'hog the floor', and to agree to disagree if necessary have been agreed and repeated at the start of each meeting, I've found it far easier to say 'Thank you A, now what do others think?' Although it felt as if I was cutting her off, she was not offended and took the hint, and others appreciated the intervention. In fact, they said that they would have stopped attending if A had been allowed to speak freely at length.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
. . . and others appreciated the intervention. In fact, they said that they would have stopped attending if A had been allowed to speak freely at length.
I've had this experience as well (and in my private behavior, I'm loath to interrupt people). It helps to remember you intervene for the group, not yourself.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I did a wonderful pastoral education paper run by two nuns. Right at the beginning of the paper, they laid down a rule that after any discussion point was opened for conversation, there would be a minute's silence. As they said, there are people who like to have a think about what to say, and those who think with their mouths open. The minute was there to give everyone time to prepare an appropriate (to the point, time-limited) contribution. It worked brilliantly, and certainly encouraged those who like to think first to speak more, and those, like me, who open their mouths, to stop and consider how much I might say.
However, I have had the challenge of having a person in a group I was running who not only spoke 2-3 times longer than anyone else, but also made everything about her history, her feelings and how she was in a worse state than the rest of the group. All attempts at intervention failed, and only served to inflame her sense of victimhood. Having a good sense of who the people in the group were, I knew very well that she was among the more privileged members, and it made me want to stage the intervention of a kick up the posterior. Any suggestions on that would be helpful, too.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
AAAARRRGGGHHH. Arabella Purity, you have my symapthies and condolences. The Society of The Permanently and Professionally Downtrodden is a breed unto itself. Its moral myopia knows no bounds and its limitless lack of empathy for others is exceeded only by its willingness to parade its stigmata before others.
If you're lucky enough to get two members of the Society in one group, you want to pair them off and consign them to a corner by themselves, where they con compete for a martyrdom trophy. Alas, I think the Society is on to this tactic; they seem to be parceling themselves out to only one per discussion group these days.
I don't know what to do about them either. Can you take your group to volunteer at a hospice for the deaf?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
Another strategy in a discussion group is to explicitly agree a collective 'ground rule' along the lines of 'let's all be responsible for making sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak, if they wish, as hearing from a range of people will make it a better discussion'.
That makes it a collective responsibility in which people will often then invest and do some self-monitoring, in a group situation, if put like this from the outset. It also means that quiet folk are not put under the pressure of feeling they must speak - they can if they wish, but aren't obliged to. If this sort of agreement has been set up at the start, people are then more ready to hear the leader intervene with e.g. 'we've heard some interesting ideas from just one or two so far. What about those we've not heard from yet - what do others think?'. Have tried this many times when teaching and it seems to work well.
Other strategies include not giving eye contact to the 'overtalker' but instead looking at those you would like to hear from next. The leader's focus of attention can shape the whole dynamic of the group in this way, potentially.
In a bigger group I'd also go for approaches such as 'what do people in this row/on this side of the room think? That focuses attention away from the overtalker on the other side of the room, but doesn't put any one individual on the spot to respond.
Finally, I've also had some success with an approach where the leader chooses the first contributor (preferably not the overtalker), they say one idea then choose one other person to speak, and so on. That takes you right round the group with an idea from everyone (passes allowed if anyone feels really shy)and allowing the group members themselves some direction of who speaks and when, before you then move to a more open discussion.
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
