231. Secret Signals: Why We Rarely Say Exactly What We Mean

WEBVTT

00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:06.600
Matt Abrahams: While many of us focus
on being direct, the reality is,

00:00:06.690 --> 00:00:12.060
being indirect strategically helps us
accomplish much of our communication.

00:00:12.300 --> 00:00:15.480
My name's Matt Abrahams and I
teach strategic communication at

00:00:15.480 --> 00:00:17.220
Stanford Graduate School of Business.

00:00:17.460 --> 00:00:20.635
Welcome to Think Fast
Talk Smart, the podcast.

00:00:20.965 --> 00:00:24.145
Today, I'm super excited to
spend time with Steven Pinker.

00:00:24.285 --> 00:00:27.925
Steven is the Johnstone Professor
of Psychology at Harvard University.

00:00:28.075 --> 00:00:31.315
He studies language, cognition,
and social relations.

00:00:31.435 --> 00:00:33.595
He has received many
awards for his teaching.

00:00:33.805 --> 00:00:37.795
He's written twelve insightful and
impactful books, and his latest is,

00:00:37.855 --> 00:00:42.269
When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows:
Common Knowledge and the Mysteries

00:00:42.269 --> 00:00:44.849
of Money, Power, and Everyday Life.

00:00:44.910 --> 00:00:45.690
Welcome, Steven.

00:00:45.750 --> 00:00:48.870
I've been looking forward to this
conversation ever since we set it up.

00:00:49.199 --> 00:00:49.500
Steven Pinker: Me too.

00:00:49.500 --> 00:00:50.370
Thanks for having me.

00:00:50.640 --> 00:00:51.179
Matt Abrahams: Excellent.

00:00:51.179 --> 00:00:51.989
Shall we get started?

00:00:52.260 --> 00:00:52.830
Steven Pinker: Let's start.

00:00:53.250 --> 00:00:55.949
Matt Abrahams: Much of your work
looks at language and cognition.

00:00:56.099 --> 00:01:00.720
You've distinguished between the what
and the what you mean by it of language.

00:01:00.780 --> 00:01:04.679
What do you mean by this distinction
and how can we use this insight to

00:01:04.679 --> 00:01:08.130
become more persuasive and effective
in the communication we have?

00:01:08.700 --> 00:01:11.610
Steven Pinker: It's long been known by
anyone who studies language that an awful

00:01:11.610 --> 00:01:15.539
lot of the time, we don't just blurt
out what we mean in so many words, but

00:01:15.539 --> 00:01:20.100
we hint, we wink, we shilly-shally, we
beat around the bush, we use euphemism,

00:01:20.100 --> 00:01:24.300
we use innuendo, counting on our
listener to read between the lines,

00:01:24.300 --> 00:01:26.070
connect the dots, catch our drift.

00:01:26.220 --> 00:01:29.050
And as someone who studies language,
this has always been a puzzle.

00:01:29.070 --> 00:01:30.870
Why don't we just blurt out what we mean?

00:01:30.900 --> 00:01:32.460
So just some obvious examples.

00:01:32.640 --> 00:01:35.280
Politeness, if you could pass
the salt, that would be awesome.

00:01:35.640 --> 00:01:37.800
Now that's an awful weird thing to say.

00:01:37.980 --> 00:01:39.630
For one thing, it's certainly hyperbolic.

00:01:39.630 --> 00:01:40.680
It wouldn't be awesome.

00:01:40.800 --> 00:01:44.850
It might be nice, but also why
are you pondering hypotheticals?

00:01:44.910 --> 00:01:46.380
We all understand what it means.

00:01:46.470 --> 00:01:47.250
Give me the salt.

00:01:47.310 --> 00:01:48.990
Why don't we just say, give me the salt.

00:01:49.200 --> 00:01:53.430
In more emotionally hot
circumstances, there's uh,

00:01:53.430 --> 00:01:54.330
certainly a lot of indirectness.

00:01:55.320 --> 00:01:58.590
So imagine you're trying to bribe your
way into a restaurant by slipping a

00:01:58.590 --> 00:01:59.975
fifty dollar bill to the maître d'.

00:02:00.505 --> 00:02:03.985
You probably wouldn't say, if I give
you the fifty, will you less jump

00:02:03.985 --> 00:02:05.095
the queue and seat us right away?

00:02:05.095 --> 00:02:08.695
You might say like, I was wondering if
you might have a cancellation, or is

00:02:08.695 --> 00:02:10.324
there any way you could shorten my wait?

00:02:10.345 --> 00:02:16.315
Or sexual come ons is a, as we all know, a
big arena for indirectness and euphemism.

00:02:16.405 --> 00:02:19.885
You wanna come up and see my etchings,
you wanna come up for coffee, you

00:02:19.885 --> 00:02:21.385
wanna come up for Netflix and chill.

00:02:21.415 --> 00:02:25.195
So in all these cases you might
say, oh, plausible deniability.

00:02:25.195 --> 00:02:26.075
But, come on.

00:02:26.075 --> 00:02:27.305
How plausible is it?

00:02:27.415 --> 00:02:30.750
As if any grown woman could, could be
in any doubt as to what, do you wanna

00:02:30.750 --> 00:02:32.940
come up for coffee, means late at night.

00:02:33.270 --> 00:02:34.140
So why do we do it?

00:02:34.140 --> 00:02:39.000
And the answer that I came up with
is that we avoid common knowledge.

00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:41.130
Now my book is about common knowledge.

00:02:41.190 --> 00:02:46.110
And common knowledge has a, a technical
meaning in linguistics, in philosophy,

00:02:46.110 --> 00:02:49.890
in economics, in game theory, and
political science, and a lot of academia.

00:02:50.170 --> 00:02:52.660
What it means is, I know
something, you know something.

00:02:52.750 --> 00:02:54.910
I know that you know it,
you know that I know it.

00:02:55.030 --> 00:02:58.000
I know that you know that I know
it, I know that you know that.

00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:00.400
I know that you know that
I know it, ad infinitum.

00:03:00.700 --> 00:03:03.910
Common knowledge is important because
it's necessary for coordination,

00:03:03.940 --> 00:03:05.290
for being on the same page.

00:03:05.380 --> 00:03:08.245
If you're the only one who knows
that you're supposed to drive on

00:03:08.245 --> 00:03:10.615
the right and everyone else thinks
that you're supposed to drive on the

00:03:10.615 --> 00:03:12.175
left, you better drive on the left.

00:03:12.175 --> 00:03:13.375
It's not enough that you know it.

00:03:13.375 --> 00:03:16.045
Even if you're right, according to the
law of the land, it doesn't matter.

00:03:16.045 --> 00:03:18.955
What matters is what everyone
knows that everyone else knows.

00:03:19.285 --> 00:03:21.685
Relationships are propped
up by common knowledge.

00:03:21.745 --> 00:03:22.555
What makes us friends?

00:03:22.555 --> 00:03:25.790
You know, it's not as if we
sign a contract, I know that

00:03:25.790 --> 00:03:26.960
you consider us friends.

00:03:26.960 --> 00:03:27.980
And what does that mean?

00:03:27.980 --> 00:03:33.230
Well, it's 'cause you know that I consider
us friends and so on, or lovers, or a boss

00:03:33.230 --> 00:03:38.150
and a subordinate, or an authority and
a person who recognizes their authority.

00:03:38.150 --> 00:03:39.620
We're two transaction partners.

00:03:39.620 --> 00:03:43.070
The relationship exists in our heads,
and it's a matter of common knowledge.

00:03:43.430 --> 00:03:47.000
So direct speech, blurting something
out, generates common knowledge.

00:03:47.205 --> 00:03:50.355
It's not a question of whether it's
deniable, it's a question of whether

00:03:50.355 --> 00:03:53.955
you know that the other person
knows what you meant is deniable.

00:03:53.955 --> 00:03:56.355
That is, is the common knowledge deniable.

00:03:56.415 --> 00:04:01.275
And common knowledge is what ratifies
or annuls social relationships,

00:04:01.335 --> 00:04:05.235
and that's why blurting something
out that contradicts assumptions

00:04:05.265 --> 00:04:08.865
of the relationship can blow
everything up and be deeply awkward.

00:04:09.120 --> 00:04:13.590
Whereas hinting innuendo, they know,
but they don't know you know they know.

00:04:13.590 --> 00:04:16.980
And that allows you to maintain
the previous relationship.

00:04:16.980 --> 00:04:20.370
So in the case of, say, a sexual
proposition, if Harry says, you

00:04:20.370 --> 00:04:24.090
wanna come up for coffee, and Sally
says, no, she knows she's turned

00:04:24.090 --> 00:04:26.820
down a sexual overture and he knows
she's turned down an overture.

00:04:26.880 --> 00:04:30.060
But does she know that he knows she knows?

00:04:30.305 --> 00:04:33.815
She could think, maybe he thinks
I'm naive, maybe he thinks I, that I

00:04:33.815 --> 00:04:35.405
just turned down a coffee invitation.

00:04:35.465 --> 00:04:37.685
And he doesn't know that
she knows that he knows.

00:04:37.685 --> 00:04:39.395
He could think maybe she thinks I'm dense.

00:04:39.425 --> 00:04:42.935
Maybe she thinks I just interpret
it as turning it down for coffee,

00:04:42.935 --> 00:04:45.605
even though I know she really
turned down a sexual overture.

00:04:45.845 --> 00:04:50.409
So without the common knowledge
they can maintain the fiction

00:04:50.409 --> 00:04:52.539
of a purely platonic friendship.

00:04:52.599 --> 00:04:55.150
Whereas if he said, do
you wanna come up for sex?

00:04:55.150 --> 00:04:57.549
And she says, no, it's never the same.

00:04:57.609 --> 00:04:59.859
They can try to go back
to a platonic friendship.

00:04:59.859 --> 00:05:03.520
But once it was out there, once it's
common knowledge, that changes everything.

00:05:03.580 --> 00:05:06.609
So when everyone knows something,
it's really different than when

00:05:06.609 --> 00:05:09.250
everyone knows it and everyone
knows that everyone knows it.

00:05:09.645 --> 00:05:13.605
Matt Abrahams: It seems to me that
the context also plays a role in

00:05:13.605 --> 00:05:15.495
what we all know about each other.

00:05:15.495 --> 00:05:19.094
So taking flirtation, which I
actually, in grad school, my

00:05:19.125 --> 00:05:21.915
research was on flirtation, not only
because I wanted to get dates when

00:05:21.915 --> 00:05:25.635
I was that age, but I was always
fascinated by strategic communication.

00:05:25.635 --> 00:05:28.095
And I think flirtation is a
wonderful venue to study that.

00:05:28.155 --> 00:05:31.215
If you go see a doctor and the
doctor says, how are you doing?

00:05:31.215 --> 00:05:32.325
That has one meaning.

00:05:32.385 --> 00:05:34.965
But if you're in a bar and
somebody says, how are you doing?

00:05:34.965 --> 00:05:36.315
That has a very different meaning.

00:05:36.794 --> 00:05:41.445
Context seems to add an extra level of
understanding of what you know and I know.

00:05:41.505 --> 00:05:44.174
And so we have to be aware, not
just of what's being said, but the

00:05:44.174 --> 00:05:45.705
context in which it's being said.

00:05:45.705 --> 00:05:49.664
And clearly we can run into some
mismatches if I'm not paying attention

00:05:49.664 --> 00:05:51.645
appropriately to the context.

00:05:52.050 --> 00:05:55.860
So it sounds to me like we have the
ability to assess and judge these

00:05:55.860 --> 00:06:00.600
circumstances and try our best
to fit within that optimal space.

00:06:00.870 --> 00:06:02.340
How do we learn to do this?

00:06:02.340 --> 00:06:06.780
I don't ever remember taking a class
on indirect, ambiguous communication.

00:06:06.840 --> 00:06:08.550
How do we learn what's appropriate?

00:06:09.085 --> 00:06:12.534
Steven Pinker: Kids often charm us
because they just blurt things out.

00:06:12.594 --> 00:06:15.925
They haven't mastered this yet,
and it's, oh, grandpa just farted.

00:06:15.985 --> 00:06:18.295
Or, how come you have hair
growing outta your nose?

00:06:18.354 --> 00:06:22.344
They just, you know, sort of say
things, so you do have to master it.

00:06:22.525 --> 00:06:23.965
Some of it is from feedback.

00:06:24.055 --> 00:06:27.414
You say things that are, as you
get older and the other kids

00:06:27.505 --> 00:06:29.155
stare at you, make fun of you.

00:06:29.275 --> 00:06:32.125
Some of it is just an
extension of conversation.

00:06:32.305 --> 00:06:37.105
We don't lay out every last step
in a logic of a conversation.

00:06:37.255 --> 00:06:38.485
Conversation would be impossible.

00:06:38.515 --> 00:06:39.985
There's so many missing links.

00:06:40.105 --> 00:06:44.035
It would be like a legal contract
and a legal contract is written

00:06:44.065 --> 00:06:49.015
so that it would be immune to an
adversary trying to exploit loopholes.

00:06:49.070 --> 00:06:51.590
When we have conversation,
we start off cooperative.

00:06:51.620 --> 00:06:53.840
That's what we mean by
to be on speaking terms.

00:06:53.930 --> 00:06:57.140
When you have two adversaries,
there is no conversation.

00:06:57.170 --> 00:07:00.500
Two coaches of two football teams
don't get together for a chat

00:07:00.500 --> 00:07:05.150
before the game, so conversation
presupposes some degree of cooperation.

00:07:05.150 --> 00:07:06.830
That's a basic law of linguistics.

00:07:07.195 --> 00:07:10.765
When you're cooperative, you can leave
things out so that the conversation

00:07:10.765 --> 00:07:13.915
doesn't take all day and you just
know that the other person will figure

00:07:13.915 --> 00:07:17.455
out what you meant on the assumption
that you're both aiming at the same

00:07:17.455 --> 00:07:20.005
thing, namely information coordination.

00:07:20.065 --> 00:07:25.285
And so knowing how a listener will
connect the dots will fill in the blanks,

00:07:25.345 --> 00:07:29.455
allows you to sometimes to be creative
in making one of these propositions.

00:07:29.575 --> 00:07:32.695
And there are formulas like,
could you please pass the salt?

00:07:32.905 --> 00:07:34.375
No one even thinks about what that means.

00:07:34.905 --> 00:07:39.765
Literally, it's a idle question, not what
it really is, which is an imperative.

00:07:39.855 --> 00:07:43.275
But still, that's the case where
it's formulaic, but sometimes there

00:07:43.275 --> 00:07:47.025
is no formula and we think about
something that's a prerequisite to the

00:07:47.025 --> 00:07:51.435
act, knowing that our hearer on the
assumption that we're not crazy, that

00:07:51.435 --> 00:07:54.530
we're rational, that we really are
trying to get at something, they then

00:07:54.830 --> 00:07:57.859
connect the dots and think, oh yeah,
of course he wants me to do something,

00:07:57.859 --> 00:07:59.900
but he's too polite to boss me around.

00:08:00.080 --> 00:08:02.270
So he's stating the precondition.

00:08:02.330 --> 00:08:07.370
And we use our natural conversational
skill at filling in the missing premises

00:08:07.430 --> 00:08:09.919
in order to convey the imperative.

00:08:10.250 --> 00:08:13.610
The reason that we do this indirectness,
this musing, you know, do you

00:08:13.610 --> 00:08:18.440
think you could please, et cetera,
is friends and, or just casual

00:08:18.440 --> 00:08:21.229
acquaintances don't like to boss each
other around like they're servants.

00:08:21.289 --> 00:08:23.359
It's not like, Jeeves,
bring me the butter.

00:08:23.450 --> 00:08:26.299
You don't wanna treat a friend like
that, but still the butter's at their

00:08:26.299 --> 00:08:27.530
end of the table and you want it.

00:08:27.859 --> 00:08:29.810
How are you gonna get it
without bossing them around?

00:08:30.120 --> 00:08:32.909
Matt Abrahams: So there's this
level of metacognition that's

00:08:32.970 --> 00:08:34.560
required to pull this off.

00:08:34.710 --> 00:08:35.670
Steven Pinker: There is in novel.

00:08:35.670 --> 00:08:36.930
When they're novel cases.

00:08:36.990 --> 00:08:41.100
A lot of these circumstances are
so familiar that we have formulas.

00:08:41.159 --> 00:08:42.270
Do you think you could pass the salt?

00:08:42.270 --> 00:08:43.290
Could you pass the salt?

00:08:43.380 --> 00:08:47.160
Where you don't have to engage in the
metacognition, in that circumstance,

00:08:47.190 --> 00:08:51.990
'cause it's so familiar cliche that the
English language gives you these formulas.

00:08:52.080 --> 00:08:58.025
But when it's a one time thing then, or
a novel situation, and you're calibrating

00:08:58.025 --> 00:09:02.915
it to the other person, a sexual come
on being a classic example, much more

00:09:02.915 --> 00:09:04.685
is at stake than getting the salt.

00:09:05.165 --> 00:09:08.315
Matt Abrahams: You mentioned in English,
and I'm curious about cross-culturally

00:09:08.315 --> 00:09:09.665
if these things apply as well.

00:09:09.665 --> 00:09:12.335
I'll share an experience I had, I
was teaching a student who was a

00:09:12.335 --> 00:09:15.485
non-native speaker of English, and
he came into my class thrilled.

00:09:15.485 --> 00:09:17.255
I mean, he was elated, super excited.

00:09:17.255 --> 00:09:18.395
So I said, Hey, what's going on?

00:09:18.395 --> 00:09:19.415
Why are you so excited?

00:09:19.475 --> 00:09:22.265
And he looked at me and said, the
woman that I'm very interested in told

00:09:22.265 --> 00:09:24.035
me that she just wants to be friends.

00:09:24.035 --> 00:09:25.565
And I'm really excited about that.

00:09:25.965 --> 00:09:31.065
And I had to rain on his parade because
let's just be friends, when he looked it

00:09:31.065 --> 00:09:33.135
up, is exactly what he was looking for.

00:09:33.135 --> 00:09:36.375
But we all know that was saying
something very different.

00:09:36.435 --> 00:09:40.245
So have you found that these ideas
of what you know and other people

00:09:40.245 --> 00:09:44.235
know and using the strategic
ambiguity crosses cultures as well?

00:09:44.685 --> 00:09:47.325
Steven Pinker: Do all cultures
have some kinds of politeness?

00:09:47.325 --> 00:09:48.645
Some kinds of indirectness?

00:09:48.675 --> 00:09:49.575
The answer is yes.

00:09:49.935 --> 00:09:54.375
Cultures can vary and often tourist,
travelers, businessmen have to get used

00:09:54.375 --> 00:09:56.865
to the level of indirectness in a culture.

00:09:56.865 --> 00:10:01.245
So Japan is famously indirect and
polite, and there are many layers

00:10:01.245 --> 00:10:04.665
of honorifics and to the point where
sometimes people get frustrated that

00:10:04.665 --> 00:10:06.165
you just never get down to business.

00:10:06.255 --> 00:10:08.115
You exchange so many pleasantries.

00:10:08.435 --> 00:10:13.535
Conversely, they're cultures like New
York or Israel where people are famously

00:10:13.535 --> 00:10:16.954
blunt and people can easily get offended
'cause they don't realize that's just how

00:10:16.954 --> 00:10:19.474
you exchange information in that culture.

00:10:19.564 --> 00:10:21.094
But all cultures have some.

00:10:21.375 --> 00:10:23.584
Matt Abrahams: What it becomes really
fascinating to me, is when you have people

00:10:23.584 --> 00:10:26.765
from lots of different cultures come
together and they have conversation and

00:10:26.765 --> 00:10:29.944
you see this play out in how some people
could be offended and others aren't.

00:10:30.314 --> 00:10:36.495
So it sounds to me at the end of the day
that this indirect communication is, while

00:10:36.525 --> 00:10:39.975
many of us say, Hey, just I want people to
be direct and honest with me, none of this

00:10:39.975 --> 00:10:44.745
doublespeak or hypocrisy, this is actually
really necessary for us to function.

00:10:44.745 --> 00:10:45.585
Would you agree with that?

00:10:46.035 --> 00:10:46.395
Steven Pinker: Well, yeah.

00:10:46.395 --> 00:10:49.365
In the last chapter of, uh, When
Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows,

00:10:49.365 --> 00:10:53.145
it's about, it's called radical
honesty, rational hypocrisy.

00:10:53.490 --> 00:10:56.190
We're all kind of hypocrites
about our hypocrisy.

00:10:56.250 --> 00:11:00.660
That is, we say, this hypocrisy is
just such a waste of time, and it's

00:11:00.660 --> 00:11:05.310
so annoying, people beating around
the bush, and roleplaying and rituals.

00:11:05.370 --> 00:11:07.680
Why don't we just cut the
crap and say what we mean.

00:11:07.680 --> 00:11:08.790
Wouldn't life be better?

00:11:08.880 --> 00:11:09.780
The answer is no.

00:11:09.780 --> 00:11:10.135
It would be awful.

00:11:10.865 --> 00:11:14.945
A lot of our relationships really
depend on common assumptions that

00:11:14.945 --> 00:11:16.805
are, at the end of the day, fictions.

00:11:16.805 --> 00:11:18.305
They're not literally true.

00:11:18.455 --> 00:11:22.265
One of them is that friends would
do anything for each other and

00:11:22.265 --> 00:11:24.845
they value the other person's
welfare as much as their own.

00:11:24.905 --> 00:11:26.135
They value the friendship.

00:11:26.195 --> 00:11:27.920
There's no limit on how much
they value the friendship.

00:11:28.360 --> 00:11:29.650
Of course that can't be true.

00:11:29.680 --> 00:11:32.689
But if you were to say, okay, we've
been on the phone for twenty-five

00:11:32.710 --> 00:11:36.580
minutes now, and twenty-five minutes
is about all I can really take of

00:11:36.580 --> 00:11:39.520
talking to you and I, there are other
things that I'd really rather do now.

00:11:39.820 --> 00:11:40.660
That is often true.

00:11:40.660 --> 00:11:45.100
But saying your friendship is worth
only so much to me, but no more.

00:11:45.580 --> 00:11:46.660
That kills the friendship.

00:11:46.720 --> 00:11:48.610
It changes everything
if you actually say it.

00:11:49.380 --> 00:11:52.319
Matt Abrahams: So this kind of
communication really does provide

00:11:52.319 --> 00:11:55.829
the lubricant for these interactions
and allows them to keep going.

00:11:56.310 --> 00:11:59.339
Steven Pinker: I wouldn't even say
lubricants so much as the basis.

00:11:59.400 --> 00:12:02.040
That is, they, that's
what being friends means.

00:12:02.040 --> 00:12:03.479
That's what being lovers means.

00:12:03.540 --> 00:12:06.930
It means that you accept certain
things as the ground rules.

00:12:07.050 --> 00:12:09.599
You know that the other person
accepts them, you know that they

00:12:09.599 --> 00:12:12.765
know that you accept them, and that's
what makes relationships possible.

00:12:13.800 --> 00:12:16.230
Matt Abrahams: In your book, The
Sense of Style, you argue that good

00:12:16.230 --> 00:12:20.340
writing and communication is about
clarity, conciseness, and grace.

00:12:20.520 --> 00:12:23.580
I understand conciseness, but
can you tell us a little bit more

00:12:23.580 --> 00:12:25.230
about grace, and then clarity?

00:12:25.980 --> 00:12:30.610
Steven Pinker: So what makes a
lot of academese, bureaucratize,

00:12:30.610 --> 00:12:34.079
corporatize, what makes it so
frustrating to get through is often

00:12:34.110 --> 00:12:36.180
what's called the curse of knowledge.

00:12:36.329 --> 00:12:40.110
The curse of knowledge is a psychological
phenomenon in which, if you know

00:12:40.110 --> 00:12:44.040
something, it's very hard to imagine
what it's like not to know it.

00:12:44.130 --> 00:12:45.840
That is, it's false common knowledge.

00:12:45.840 --> 00:12:48.630
You assume that your private
knowledge is common knowledge.

00:12:48.870 --> 00:12:52.770
That's why in bad writing, the
writer doesn't spell out the

00:12:52.770 --> 00:12:56.485
abbreviations, doesn't explain
the jargon, doesn't give examples,

00:12:56.485 --> 00:12:58.375
doesn't allow for a concrete image.

00:12:58.435 --> 00:13:01.525
It doesn't occur to them because it's
just so obvious, to them, and they don't

00:13:01.525 --> 00:13:03.655
realize it's not obvious to anyone else.

00:13:03.745 --> 00:13:06.775
So that's what goes into a lot of
clarity, is just the empathy of

00:13:06.775 --> 00:13:11.155
what does the reader know and what
can they see in their mind's eye?

00:13:11.334 --> 00:13:14.185
Sometimes clear writing
may be a kind of graceless.

00:13:14.185 --> 00:13:15.865
It may be an instruction manual.

00:13:15.865 --> 00:13:16.735
It could be a memo.

00:13:17.275 --> 00:13:22.194
But when we try to persuade, to charm,
even to make our writing pleasurable

00:13:22.194 --> 00:13:25.790
enough that other people will pay for
it, we wanna get a job as a columnist

00:13:25.790 --> 00:13:29.270
or reviewer, we just want an audience,
the prose has to be compelling.

00:13:29.450 --> 00:13:31.610
And there are many
things that go into that.

00:13:31.700 --> 00:13:33.470
There's, first of all, just clarity.

00:13:33.470 --> 00:13:35.510
If you've got a struggle to
figure out what the other person

00:13:35.510 --> 00:13:39.410
means, then you're gonna give up,
and that makes prose graceless.

00:13:39.740 --> 00:13:43.160
Imposing on the memory load of a reader.

00:13:43.160 --> 00:13:46.430
If you've gotta hold too many words
from the beginning of the sentence in

00:13:46.520 --> 00:13:48.920
mind before you get to the end of the
sentence and know what they're doing.

00:13:49.430 --> 00:13:54.500
Or if it's not clear where the end of
one phrase is and the beginning of the

00:13:54.500 --> 00:13:58.880
next one is, and the reader has to work
hard, and if they're trying too hard

00:13:58.880 --> 00:14:02.540
to parse the syntax of the sentence,
instead of seeing through to the

00:14:02.540 --> 00:14:05.240
meaning, that makes prose less graceful.

00:14:05.480 --> 00:14:08.450
But also even the melody
and rhythm of speech.

00:14:08.520 --> 00:14:09.750
In this case, there is no speech.

00:14:09.750 --> 00:14:13.020
It's writing, but writing
is mentally always speech.

00:14:13.020 --> 00:14:16.290
When you read someone's words,
you're always sounding it out to

00:14:16.290 --> 00:14:17.730
yourself as if they're speaking.

00:14:17.790 --> 00:14:22.350
And so just the sheer mellifluousness
of the sentence, as it would

00:14:22.350 --> 00:14:25.110
be said aloud, goes into grace.

00:14:25.230 --> 00:14:28.470
And one other thing is the
vividness of the mental picture

00:14:28.530 --> 00:14:30.030
that the reader is supposed to get.

00:14:30.030 --> 00:14:33.770
And one of the things that makes bad
writing bad is the reader doesn't

00:14:33.770 --> 00:14:35.660
have any image, nothing to grasp.

00:14:35.750 --> 00:14:39.200
Instead of someone describing a study
with kids and they talk about the

00:14:39.320 --> 00:14:43.940
experimental stimuli instead of the
Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch puppets.

00:14:44.030 --> 00:14:48.230
So being concrete, being visual,
being vivid, is an important

00:14:48.230 --> 00:14:49.880
way for prose to be graceful.

00:14:50.210 --> 00:14:53.060
The other component of grace is, and
I have a whole chapter in The Sense of

00:14:53.060 --> 00:14:55.700
Style on this phenomenon of coherence.

00:14:55.850 --> 00:14:59.960
That is, even if every sentence
in a passage is a hundred percent

00:15:00.020 --> 00:15:05.090
comprehensible, the passage itself
may be baffling if you don't know

00:15:05.210 --> 00:15:07.910
how one sentence leads into the next.

00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:13.255
And that's why we use connector words
like however, nonetheless, on the other

00:15:13.255 --> 00:15:18.955
hand, moreover, that is, for example,
in general, they seem like silly

00:15:18.955 --> 00:15:21.115
little fillers, but they're really not.

00:15:21.265 --> 00:15:25.855
They're the links, the glue that
make one sentence flow into the next.

00:15:25.945 --> 00:15:30.745
And a lot of the feeling of coherence,
flow, indeed grace comes when

00:15:30.745 --> 00:15:34.495
you just know why the writer is
saying what he's saying right now.

00:15:34.615 --> 00:15:37.135
How does it fit into everything
that I've read so far?

00:15:37.449 --> 00:15:41.589
Matt Abrahams: This idea of coherence
that helps people to really understand the

00:15:41.589 --> 00:15:45.729
flow of the message, super important, and
I like that as a key component of grace.

00:15:46.060 --> 00:15:48.520
You've discussed the concept
of metaphors in language.

00:15:48.790 --> 00:15:51.854
What are these and what do they mean
for the way in which we communicate?

00:15:52.725 --> 00:15:56.505
Steven Pinker: There are more
metaphors in language than we realize.

00:15:56.595 --> 00:15:58.275
Often we're completely unaware of them.

00:15:58.545 --> 00:16:01.755
We know this from a brilliant work
by the linguist George Lakoff and

00:16:01.755 --> 00:16:04.965
the philosopher Mark Johnson in a
book called Metaphors We Live By, I

00:16:04.965 --> 00:16:06.495
think it's forty-five years old now.

00:16:06.855 --> 00:16:10.515
They noticed that some things that
we talk about, we keep harking back

00:16:10.515 --> 00:16:12.405
to the same metaphorical image.

00:16:12.405 --> 00:16:14.190
So a relationship is a journey.

00:16:14.740 --> 00:16:16.180
We've gone through a lot together.

00:16:16.240 --> 00:16:17.500
We're at a crossroads.

00:16:17.500 --> 00:16:19.300
We might have to go our separate ways.

00:16:19.390 --> 00:16:22.540
Look how far we've come,
or argument is war.

00:16:22.750 --> 00:16:26.680
I tried to defend my position,
but he demolished it.

00:16:26.980 --> 00:16:28.300
Knowing is seeing.

00:16:28.390 --> 00:16:29.260
I see what you mean.

00:16:29.260 --> 00:16:31.630
But that argument is cloudy or murky.

00:16:31.630 --> 00:16:32.560
I can't make it out.

00:16:32.949 --> 00:16:35.260
We don't even realize we do
it, but we do it all the time.

00:16:35.560 --> 00:16:37.990
Matt Abrahams: I have a colleague,
Michele Gelfand, she likes to talk

00:16:37.990 --> 00:16:41.890
about mind your metaphors because
in negotiation and influence and

00:16:41.890 --> 00:16:46.090
conflict, those metaphors impact how
we approach it and the words we use.

00:16:46.090 --> 00:16:49.840
So if I see a negotiation as a
battle versus a problem to be solved,

00:16:49.870 --> 00:16:51.190
I approach it very differently.

00:16:52.500 --> 00:16:54.840
Well, Steven, before we end, I'd
like to ask you three questions.

00:16:54.840 --> 00:16:57.120
One I create just for you and
the rest I've asked everybody

00:16:57.120 --> 00:16:58.110
who's ever been on the show.

00:16:58.110 --> 00:16:58.829
Are you up for that?

00:16:58.980 --> 00:16:59.520
Steven Pinker: Sure thing.

00:16:59.790 --> 00:17:03.150
Matt Abrahams: You have written about
cursing, and it's fun to talk about, and

00:17:03.150 --> 00:17:07.980
I'm curious, how does cursing, swearing,
how can we use it as an effective tool?

00:17:07.980 --> 00:17:09.270
What value does it provide?

00:17:09.579 --> 00:17:12.609
Steven Pinker: The thing that
swearing does is it elicits

00:17:12.669 --> 00:17:15.280
involuntary emotional reaction.

00:17:15.369 --> 00:17:18.760
Your primitive part of your brain,
maybe your amygdala just gets pinged,

00:17:18.760 --> 00:17:23.800
usually with some, not just an
offensive thought, excretion, feces,

00:17:23.800 --> 00:17:29.460
urine, cuckoldry, copulation, death,
misfortune, those are the subject

00:17:29.460 --> 00:17:31.919
matter of swearing across languages.

00:17:31.980 --> 00:17:36.510
But also there's common knowledge in the
sense that when someone uses a profane

00:17:36.510 --> 00:17:40.530
word and they know that you're trying to
get an emotional reaction out of them.

00:17:40.800 --> 00:17:44.520
That's why we avoid swear words
when we have no interest in

00:17:44.520 --> 00:17:45.510
getting an emotional reaction.

00:17:46.120 --> 00:17:48.460
When you go into the doctor's
office, the nurse might say, well,

00:17:48.460 --> 00:17:49.810
we'd like to take a stool sample.

00:17:49.810 --> 00:17:51.460
She wouldn't say, we'd
like to take a shit sample.

00:17:51.760 --> 00:17:55.510
But shit does, it pings a
little part of our brain.

00:17:55.930 --> 00:17:59.830
Now, there is a, a rule for
taboo language if used rarely and

00:17:59.830 --> 00:18:03.520
judiciously it can express something
you can't express it any other way.

00:18:03.580 --> 00:18:06.260
If you're angry, like, will
you pick up your dog shit?

00:18:06.490 --> 00:18:09.120
It's not a very nice way of
putting it, but it's appropriate

00:18:09.120 --> 00:18:10.710
to be anger at the moment.

00:18:10.980 --> 00:18:11.640
Matt Abrahams: Understood.

00:18:11.640 --> 00:18:13.260
That was a damn good answer.

00:18:13.260 --> 00:18:13.860
Thank you.

00:18:14.160 --> 00:18:17.490
There's some research that I've heard
when I talk and try to help people

00:18:17.580 --> 00:18:20.640
feel more comfortable and confident
in their communication, manage their

00:18:20.640 --> 00:18:25.050
anxiety, that swearing actually releases
some neurochemicals that can blunt the

00:18:25.050 --> 00:18:27.840
cortisol that comes about from anxiety.

00:18:27.840 --> 00:18:31.050
So it can actually make you feel a
little more confident or at least

00:18:31.050 --> 00:18:34.800
a little less unconfident, just by
blurting out, not in front of public

00:18:34.800 --> 00:18:38.220
obviously, but you might do it behind
the curtain before you get out on stage.

00:18:38.669 --> 00:18:40.200
Let me ask you question number two.

00:18:40.290 --> 00:18:42.960
Who is a communicator
that you admire and why?

00:18:43.379 --> 00:18:44.460
Steven Pinker: Oh, geez.

00:18:44.550 --> 00:18:49.800
On the public stage, Barack Obama
was a, has a deserved reputation as

00:18:49.800 --> 00:18:53.885
a communicator, particularly for the
nonverbal component of trying to bring

00:18:53.909 --> 00:18:56.370
the country together in moments of crisis.

00:18:56.490 --> 00:18:59.220
Now, he didn't succeed with everyone
'cause there were factions that

00:18:59.220 --> 00:19:03.190
still hated him, but just by
virtue of conspicuously making the

00:19:03.190 --> 00:19:06.700
effort to bring people together, I
think that had a positive effect.

00:19:06.970 --> 00:19:10.240
Among writers, I think George
Will has a way with words.

00:19:10.240 --> 00:19:12.070
He's been around for quite some time.

00:19:12.340 --> 00:19:15.520
Matt Abrahams: Obama certainly
is recognized as a, as an amazing

00:19:15.520 --> 00:19:18.700
communicator, and I appreciate
you highlighting the ability

00:19:18.700 --> 00:19:20.200
to bring people together.

00:19:20.530 --> 00:19:21.760
Last question for you.

00:19:21.820 --> 00:19:26.800
What are the first three ingredients that
go into a successful communication recipe?

00:19:27.225 --> 00:19:29.895
Steven Pinker: Well, certainly
empathy, not in the sense of

00:19:30.165 --> 00:19:33.435
necessarily feeling someone's pain,
but getting inside their head.

00:19:33.465 --> 00:19:36.615
Overcoming the curse of knowledge,
knowing what they don't know.

00:19:36.915 --> 00:19:44.055
The simultaneous awareness of the message
to be communicated and the relationship

00:19:44.055 --> 00:19:45.580
that you have with your hearer.

00:19:46.010 --> 00:19:49.850
That's what all this euphemism
and indirectness and innuendo

00:19:49.850 --> 00:19:51.530
is, is all about calibrating it.

00:19:51.620 --> 00:19:56.360
Finding the optimal level of directness
or indirectness that's appropriate to the

00:19:56.360 --> 00:20:01.850
context, the nature of your relationship,
the culture you're in, and the costs

00:20:01.850 --> 00:20:06.979
and benefits of the message going over
your hearer's head or being so blatant

00:20:06.979 --> 00:20:08.310
that they know what you're up to.

00:20:08.925 --> 00:20:12.555
Matt Abrahams: So empathy, making
sure that you balance out, or

00:20:12.555 --> 00:20:15.915
think through, the message and the
relationship you have, and trying to

00:20:15.915 --> 00:20:20.685
balance among all of those factors in
terms of directness around context,

00:20:20.685 --> 00:20:22.605
relationship, cost, benefit, and culture.

00:20:22.725 --> 00:20:22.905
Steven Pinker: Yeah.

00:20:22.905 --> 00:20:23.570
Optimal directness.

00:20:23.570 --> 00:20:23.730
Yes.

00:20:24.270 --> 00:20:25.500
Matt Abrahams: Optimal directness.

00:20:25.530 --> 00:20:28.260
Thank you, Steven, for all
of the valuable insights.

00:20:28.260 --> 00:20:32.670
Truly a masterclass in how to be
more effective in our communication,

00:20:32.730 --> 00:20:37.140
and you've uncovered many insights
into our indirect communication.

00:20:37.230 --> 00:20:40.350
Thank you, and I wish you well with
your newest book, When Everyone

00:20:40.350 --> 00:20:43.770
Knows That Everyone Knows: Common
Knowledge and the Mysteries of

00:20:43.770 --> 00:20:45.840
Money, Power, and Everyday Life.

00:20:45.960 --> 00:20:46.800
Steven Pinker: Thanks for having me on.

00:20:48.990 --> 00:20:51.000
Matt Abrahams: Thank you for
joining us for another episode of

00:20:51.000 --> 00:20:53.100
Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast.

00:20:53.220 --> 00:20:55.679
To learn more about language
and cognition, please listen to

00:20:55.679 --> 00:21:00.030
episode 91 with Valerie Fridland
and episode 224 with Adam Aleksic.

00:21:00.240 --> 00:21:04.899
This episode was produced by Katherine
Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams.

00:21:04.919 --> 00:21:06.419
Our music is from Floyd Wonder.

00:21:06.480 --> 00:21:08.730
With special thanks to
Podium Podcast Company.

00:21:09.074 --> 00:21:12.165
Please find us on YouTube and
wherever you get your podcasts.

00:21:12.225 --> 00:21:14.294
Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

00:21:14.324 --> 00:21:16.574
Also, follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram.

00:21:16.695 --> 00:21:21.135
And check out fastersmarter.io for
deep dive videos, English language

00:21:21.135 --> 00:21:23.054
learning content and our newsletter.

00:21:23.264 --> 00:21:26.864
Please consider our premium offering
for extended Deep Thinks episodes,

00:21:26.955 --> 00:21:31.914
Ask Matt Anythings, and much
more at fastersmarter.io/premium.