>Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations; takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations.

I don't really understand the thesis outlined in the article. "Givers" and "takers" are defined like this, but it actually sounds like the two types of conversationalists are "actives" and "passives", where actives seek to move the conversation forward and passives let others move it forward. A giver-and-taker conversation where both participants are alternatingly active can work. The giver asks a question and the taker answers it but then adds something of their own that doesn't let the conversation grind to a halt.

Example:

A: Hey, have you heard about X? (giver, active)

B: Oh, I hate X. I think Y. (taker, active)

A: Woah, hang on. I'm not so sure about Y. (taker, active)

B: Oh, yeah? Do you think Z? (giver, active)

In my experience, the absolute worst conversations I've had were those where I felt I was the only one putting in any effort, trying to come up with topic after topic only to have them peter out in under a minute, followed by silence.

I also don't know that people are necessarily fixed in their roles, be as giver, taker, passive, or active. In fact, if I'd have to guess, an engaging conversation has the participants constantly switch roles with the flow, depending on how much they have to say on a given topic.

So I think a corollary from all this is that a conversation breaks down when an active participant switches to passive expecting the other to become active, when in fact the other person just wants to be passive, or when two passive people try to have a conversation, in which case nothing happens at all.