It does sound like Rivka's example. That's also not a typical example of the sort of empathetic analogy I'm talking about being typical in conversations. I'd give you a real example of what I do mean, but all the conversations I've analyzed professionally are in German. :-) So here's a fake one:
Young woman #1: Oh, my god, my real estate agent is driving me crazy. He keeps showing us houses that are too far away from the centre of town! I keep trying to guide him in the right direction, but he's just not getting it.
Young woman #2: Oh, jeez. We had to deal with that with our builder, too. They wanted us to build in one of those icky suburbs, and we couldn't convince them that we really wanted a downtown neighbourhood.
Young woman #1: I just don't know what to do. I mean, should I fire him or what? Surely there are plenty of other real estate agents out there.
#1 is complaining in her first "turn," and #2 makes a comment on that complaint in her first turn, by means of an analogy. The analogy conveys an experience that has some superficial similarities with the one #1 is complaining about, but isn't identical. #1 doesn't comment on the analogy, but takes it as the "ping, I understand" that it was meant to be, and goes on saying what she'd been intending to say. Also important: the conversation continues with #1's narrative, and doesn't get derailed by #2's side comment.
If #1 didn't accept #2's analogy, an ordinary conversation along the same lines might go like this:
Young woman #1: Oh, my god, my real estate agent is driving me crazy. He keeps showing us houses that are too far away from the centre of town! I keep trying to guide him in the right direction, but he's just not getting it.
Young woman #2: Oh, jeez. We had to deal with that with our builder, too. They wanted us to build in one of those icky suburbs, and we couldn't convince them that we really wanted a downtown neighbourhood.
Young woman #1: Yeah, but at least you could fire your builder if you wanted to! My real estate agent is Jane's cousin. I just don't know what I should do. Should I fire him or what? Maybe it would be worth the hassle.
Young woman #2: Maybe you should ask Jane what she thinks you should do.
Here, #1 interjects the objection to the analogy into the conversation, and then continues with what she really wanted to ask her friend. Her friend responds by addressing neither her analogy nor the objection, but the original conversation topic. Nothing gets derailed.
This happens all the time in casual conversation. It sounded to me like Rivka was saying in this post something like "when it's a cultural minority talking about her cultural experience, the conversational rules are different." Which may be true, but if it is, that's not without its own problems.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Way, way off topic apart from the last sentence, but probably necessary
Date: 2006-06-04 08:06 pm (UTC)Young woman #1: Oh, my god, my real estate agent is driving me crazy. He keeps showing us houses that are too far away from the centre of town! I keep trying to guide him in the right direction, but he's just not getting it.
Young woman #2: Oh, jeez. We had to deal with that with our builder, too. They wanted us to build in one of those icky suburbs, and we couldn't convince them that we really wanted a downtown neighbourhood.
Young woman #1: I just don't know what to do. I mean, should I fire him or what? Surely there are plenty of other real estate agents out there.
#1 is complaining in her first "turn," and #2 makes a comment on that complaint in her first turn, by means of an analogy. The analogy conveys an experience that has some superficial similarities with the one #1 is complaining about, but isn't identical. #1 doesn't comment on the analogy, but takes it as the "ping, I understand" that it was meant to be, and goes on saying what she'd been intending to say. Also important: the conversation continues with #1's narrative, and doesn't get derailed by #2's side comment.
If #1 didn't accept #2's analogy, an ordinary conversation along the same lines might go like this:
Young woman #1: Oh, my god, my real estate agent is driving me crazy. He keeps showing us houses that are too far away from the centre of town! I keep trying to guide him in the right direction, but he's just not getting it.
Young woman #2: Oh, jeez. We had to deal with that with our builder, too. They wanted us to build in one of those icky suburbs, and we couldn't convince them that we really wanted a downtown neighbourhood.
Young woman #1: Yeah, but at least you could fire your builder if you wanted to! My real estate agent is Jane's cousin. I just don't know what I should do. Should I fire him or what? Maybe it would be worth the hassle.
Young woman #2: Maybe you should ask Jane what she thinks you should do.
Here, #1 interjects the objection to the analogy into the conversation, and then continues with what she really wanted to ask her friend. Her friend responds by addressing neither her analogy nor the objection, but the original conversation topic. Nothing gets derailed.
This happens all the time in casual conversation. It sounded to me like Rivka was saying in this post something like "when it's a cultural minority talking about her cultural experience, the conversational rules are different." Which may be true, but if it is, that's not without its own problems.
-J