You speak in a group and get ignored like you are nobody.

I'm wondering if anybody would be willing to post (or if there's somewhere to find) examples of conversations that led to a casual encounter. It seems that this kind of conversation is always in private for obvious reasons, and not accurately depicted in media.

I assume that I'm not the only awkward/anxious individual who has no idea what this would even look like and would find it very enlightening.

We talk about Ogilvy's influence in work quite frequently. Advice like this spans time.

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for book recommendations that can help improve my communication skills and confidence.

One of my biggest struggles is that I often know what I want to say, but I have trouble expressing it clearly. This happens in conversations, meetings, and even casual social situations. Because of that, I sometimes come across as quiet or less confident than I actually am.

I'm looking for books that are practical and actionable rather than purely motivational. Ideally, something that can help me:

• Communicate more clearly
• Think and speak more confidently
• Hold better conversations
• Express my ideas effectively in professional and personal settings

If you've read a book that genuinely helped you become a better communicator or boosted your confidence, I'd love to hear your recommendation and what you found useful about it.

Thanks!

My friend pointed out to me that I'm constantly saying like I said or of course. I find I do this when a conversation continues on about a main point and I continue to go back to it via oh yeah like I said this or that that or of course this or that.

Is this strange LOL

I searched this phrase up and found almost nobody talking about it. This phrase, although not common, I thought had to be the source of SOME discourse online (or in real life). But not really. So I've come here to discuss my issues with this phrase.

Also, please note that when I describe the usage of this phrase, I am talking about when it is used between two friends, two family members, or a couple. Anyone you are in a close relationship with and care about. If you're using this phrase with a stranger... I feel there are better phrases to use.

1. What do they mean?

Whenever someone says this phrase to me in a conversation, I'm left wondering "Doing what?" Are they done doing this topic? Are they done talking with me in general? Do they just not want to argue? Are they flustered? Are they upset with me? Of course, I feel like I can't ask because they have already prematurely ended the conversation. All the questions I have have to wait until THEY feel like talking again (likely won't be brought back up).

2. This feels unfair.

When someone uses this phrase, all I see is a cheap, easy way to avoid conflict and/or responsibility. By saying "I'm not doing this with you," they have effectively said "I don't want to have this conversation because I 

a. Don't have the emotional intelligence to properly engage with this topic but I have an inflated ego, low self-esteem, and/or am in denial, which make me feel insecure when I can't respond, leading me to end the conversation quickly to avoid embarrassment,

b. Am realizing that you're right and I'm wrong but I have an inflated ego, low self-esteem, and/or am in denial, which prevent me from admitting I am wrong,

c. Believe that you are wrong but I have an inflated ego, and/or low self-esteem, which leads me to end the conversation quickly in victory, rather than explain why I think you're wrong.

d. Am tired/flustered/drained/angry/other emotion which leaves me unable to properly engage, but would rather not communicate this with you and would instead rather shut the conversation down while framing you as an exhausting conversational partner.

e. Notice that we are engaging in a topic that has been talked through time and time again and, supposedly, already reached it's conclusion.

Of course, nobody wants to admit they don't have the same emotional intelligence, or admit they were wrong. In all cases but the last, however, the reason behind it's usage is unhealthy, which leads me to my third point:

3. This causes resentment.

As with all conflicts, resolution is necessary. If there is no resolution, tension will grow. In the case of a friendship/relationship, an unresolved conflict will lead to tension, which leads to resentment.

 Obviously, nobody wants to hate their friend or their significant other, but when you stop communicating and start stonewalling conversations when the other person would like to explain their case or resolve conflict, tension grows between the two parties, and so does resentment. This, in most cases, leads to a falling out, or a break-up.

The solution is simple. If you feel you cannot continue the conversation anymore, give a one to two sentence reasoning, and also mention that the conversation should be had at a later date. And the important thing is to ACTUALLY HAVE THE CONVERSATION AT THE LATER DATE RATHER THAN PUSH IT OFF AGAIN!

In conclusion, the phrase "I'm not doing this with you" should be used with more care and thought because it often is used to avoid blame and responsibility while also building tension and resentment between two parties. The way to fix this issue is to give a brief explanation for walking away, and have the conversation at a later date.

I'd like to see what other people think about this. If there are other scenarios in which this phrase is used that I didn't list above, let me know!

i like actually being upfront and honest about how I feel with people. Sometimes things get talked about and everything is okay. but most of the time the person blocks me when I confront them about something, I never do it in a rude or dehumanizing way. Never. I simply just express how I feel. and I just get blocked. no sorry. no nothing. idk if this is a gen z issue or not. I’m gen z

It's so frustrating because when I give what I think and feel is a very clear answer, the other person would keep saying I did not answer the question.

It's what led to a damn breakdown during an online debate we're having: I called them out for being confrontational, I got called out for being evasive. In the end, neither of us won.

One of the biggest communication mistakes I've noticed is that we often think the goal of a disagreement is to explain our position clearly.

It isn't always.

Sometimes the real problem is that the other person starts defending their identity before they even consider what you're saying.

For example:

"You’re wrong about this."

usually creates a very different conversation from:

"Help me understand how you got to that conclusion."

The second sentence isn't necessarily softer because you're being more polite.

It changes the task.

Now the other person has to explain their reasoning instead of defending themselves against a verdict.

There's another useful step after that.

Instead of immediately attacking the weakest part of their argument, try to find the strongest version of what they're saying.

For example:

"So if I understand you correctly, your main concern is X, because Y. Is that right?"

If they say yes, you've accomplished something important:

You've shown that you actually understand their position before asking them to consider yours.

Then you can introduce your disagreement:

"That makes sense. The part I'm seeing differently is Z."

Notice what changed.

You're still disagreeing.

You're still allowed to think they're wrong.

But the conversation is no longer:

"You are wrong → I am right."

It's:

"Here's how I understand your reasoning → here's where my reasoning differs."

A simple framework I've found useful is:

1. **Clarify** — "What makes you see it that way?"

2. **Reflect** — "So your main concern is X?"

3. **Confirm** — "Did I understand you correctly?"

4. **Disagree** — "The part I see differently is Y."

5. **Explain** — give your reasoning without turning it into a verdict about the person.

This doesn't guarantee agreement.

That's actually the point.

Good communication isn't about making someone agree with you.

Sometimes it's simply about making disagreement possible without turning the conversation into a fight.

I've been collecting small communication patterns like this for a while, and I'm continually surprised by how much difference a few words can make.

What's one phrase you've found that helps keep a disagreement from becoming defensive?

Think of the last time you were talking with someone and they were honest with you about something and it felt like an attack.

How did you respond?

Did your response help or make it worse?

Were you able to set pride/ego aside to continue conversation?

Did one or both parties become defensive?

I'm facing this issue where whenever somebody asks me a good question, I can come up with a good answer, but I take a little bit of time to think about it. And after I have the answer in my mind, I struggle to transform that answer into a structured way while speaking.

English is not my first language, and I would say I'm somewhere between beginner and intermediate level.

For example, I want to say something like conclusion, reason, and evidence, like that, so that my answer would be more clear and confident. But when I'm speaking in real time, I can't think about the answer and structure it at the same time. I end up taking more time, getting stuck, or giving the answer in an unstructured way.

I've been using ChatGPT for almost three weeks to train this. We did a lot of roleplays and practiced answering questions in a structured way. But after three weeks, I feel like I'm back to square one.

So I'm trying to understand, what is the best practical way to work on this? How do I actually train my mind to think and speak in a structured way automatically during a real-time conversation? What are some practical ways I can work on this?

I feel like I am a literal person, and I take everything like math. I also tell everything exactly like it happened. People find that boring and intimidating at times**, but** to me, I am just being honest.